Court Opinion

ID: 9847840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:08:34.247543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:38.331678
License: Public Domain

Carley, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 2, 3 and 4 and in the judgment. With regard to Division 1, the majority opines that Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (334 SE2d 661) (1985) is authority for the admission of the letter excluded by the trial court. Thus, the implication is that the trial court may have erred, and the majority concludes with the statement that “any error in the trial court’s refusal to admit into evidence the letter written with the trial in mind was harmless.” I believe that under the factual circumstances of this case, Cuzzort is totally inapplicable and that there was no error at all in excluding the proffered self-serving evidence.