Court Opinion

ID: 9612040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:03:38.536692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:18.941485
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
I do not agree with the majority’s holding in division 3 that the evidence of marijuana in Miller’s pocket at the time of his arrest would be admissible in his trial for felony murder simply because the marijuana was a circumstance of his arrest.
In 1876, this Court stated that the circumstances of a defendant’s arrest are “proper evidence to be submitted to the jury to be weighed by them for what they are worth.”3 This Court has through the years relied upon this broad statement with little consideration of whether it comports with the express relevancy requirement codified in OCGA § 24-2-1. Because evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible, trial courts and this Court should examine the specific evidence sought to be admitted and the relevance of that evidence. By relying on talismanic statements that broad categories of evidence are admissible without regard to reason or rationale, we fail in our obligation to provide clarity and guidance to the bench and bar.
The primary issue in the trial was whether Miller was the man who broke into the Lashleys’ house. Since Mrs. Lashley did not observe the marijuana, proof of Miller’s possession of marijuana does *745not tend to logically prove identity or any other material issue in the case. If the marijuana evidence is not relevant to the felony counts, it should not be admissible in the trial on those counts.4 Nor does evidence become admissible simply because the state added a charge related to the evidence. I would hold that the mere fact of Miller’s possession of marijuana when arrested does not justify the joinder of the offenses. Nevertheless, considering the strength of the state’s case, I cannot conclude that had the offenses been severed, the outcome of the case would have been different.
Decided February 8, 1999 —
Reconsideration denied April 1,1999.
Billy M. Grantham, for appellant.
J Brown Moseley, District Attorney, John A. Warr, Robert R. Auman, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Angelica M. Woo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

 Wynne v. State, 56 Ga. 113 (5), 119 (1876).

 See Crosby v. State, 269 Ga. 434, 435 (498 SE2d 62) (1998) (evidence that a defendant had a small amount of marijuana in her purse at the time of arrest was irrelevant and prejudicial in murder trial and the trial court erred in admitting it into evidence).