Court Opinion

ID: 9587853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:27:09.69999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:52.748828
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with Division 2 of the dissent and its conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in this case. I also agree with that portion of Division 1 of the dissent which points out that the majority incorrectly limits the admissibility of an admission against interest to statements which are not hearsay. As the dissent makes clear, such statements are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
However, I do not agree with the dissent’s unqualified conclusion that the statement here involved “failed to qualify for admission under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.” In this case, I agree that the statement was inadmissible because the trial court determined it not to be within the res gestae, and that ruling “will not be disturbed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.” Andrews v. State, 249 Ga. 223, 228 (290 SE2d 71) (1982). Compare Stouffer Corp. v. Henkel, 170 Ga. App. 383, 385 (317 SE2d 222) (1984) where the trial court found the statement there involved to be admissible under the res gestae exception, and this Court could not say that the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous.
*275Decided October 18, 1988 —
Rehearing denied November 15, 1988
Robert A. Falanga, Jesse E. Barrow III, for appellant.
Hart & Sullivan, Terrance C. Sullivan, Alexander H. Booth, Brynda S. Rodriguez, for appellee.