Court Opinion

ID: 9605817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:42:13.044012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:11.830701
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissented in Hunt v. State, 233 Ga. 329, and I also dissent in this case.
It is my Anew that evidence of an independent offense or crime is never admissible unless the prejudice it creates toward the accused is outweighed by its relevance to the issues on trial. See Larkins v. State, 230 Ga. 418 (197 SE2d 367) (1973).
Where the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is the issue, most courts have been particularly strict in allowing evidence of prior crimes or offenses. McCormick suggests that, where identity is to be shoAvn by a similar method of prior crimes, the "device used must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” McCormick on Evidence (2d Ed., 1972), Sec. 190.
I think that the evidence of Nancy Hall relating to a prior and independent offense was prejudicial to the accused, and its relevance to the issues on trial did not outweigh this prejudice in the eyes and ears of the jury.
I think that the appellant is entitled to a new trial *593free from this prejudicial testimony.
I respectfully dissent.