Court Opinion

ID: 9852876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:38:10.930726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:36.210769
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority that the trial court’s error in admitting multiple hearsay statements by Brittany Cansler was harmless. These out-of-court statements pervaded the trial, and were not cumulative of the one hearsay statement that the child made to her mother and that the majority properly finds was admissible. Moreover, although the majority applies the nonconstitutional harmless error standard of Johnson v. State,3 even though the error that occurred at trial was of constitutional dimension, I conclude that the error was not harmless either under the nonconstitutional or constitutional harmless error standard. Accordingly, I dissent.
To begin, I will address the appropriate standard that should be applied in this case for determining whether the error was harmless. At trial, the court admitted numerous out-of-court statements of Brittany Cansler under our Child Hearsay Statute.3
4
5After London’s trial, however, this Court held in Woodard v. State5 that admitting a child witness’s hearsay statements into evidence under OCGA § 24-3-16 violated a defendant’s right to equal protection.6 Thus, the trial court’s decision to admit Brittany’s statements under § 24-3-16 violated London’s right to equal protection.
The majority properly attempts to determine whether the trial court’s decision to admit the hearsay statements was nevertheless correct by analyzing whether the statements were admissible as *96prior inconsistent statements. Once the majority, however, determines that the statements were not admissible as prior inconsistent statements, the trial court’s constitutional error is not cured and this Court must therefore determine whether that constitutional error is harmless. In this regard, a constitutional error is harmless “ ‘if it can be shown to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not contribute to the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (87 SC 824, 17 LE2d 705) (1967).’ ”7 Moreover, “ ‘[t]he fact that there was other sufficient evidence to convict does not make the error harmless; rather, the test is whether the evidence may have influenced the jury’s verdict.’ ”8
In the present case, seven witnesses other than Brittany’s mother testified about out-of-court statements that Brittany Cansler had made to them that implicated London. Several of these witnesses gave lengthy testimony that far exceeded in detail the one-sentence response that Brittany made to her mother about what happened on the night of the crime and that the majority concludes was admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. In this regard, Linda Earnest, a licensed clinical social worker, testified that she counseled Brittany on numerous occasions during a five-month period following the crime. Earnest testified that every time she met with Brittany, Brittany made a statement about her sister’s death. Earnest added that Brittany’s statements were detailed, elaborate and consistent, and occurred during play therapy aimed at creating a comfortable atmosphere for Brittany. According to Earnest, Brittany told her she was having nightmares and that the dreams had blood in them. Earnest also testified that whenever she met with Brittany, Brittany would tell her that London had hit Briana in the head, face, and neck, and had kicked her as well. Earnest stated that Brittany demonstrated what London did to Briana with a doll, and that in doing so, Brittany hit the doll on the face and neck and dropped the doll and kicked it on the legs and back. Earnest used a doll to demonstrate to the jury what Brittany did with the doll.
In addition to Earnest’s testimony, the State also introduced the testimony of George Washington, a child protective social worker with the Cobb County Department of Family and Children Services. Washington testified that he and a police officer conducted a videotaped interview with Brittany several days after the crime. The videotape was played to the jury, and the jury was provided with a 13-page copy of the transcript of the interview. During the interview, Brittany demonstrated where London punched Briana in the face *97and pointed to a spot on her face to show where blood appeared on Briana’s face. Brittany also stated that London sent Brittany and Briana upstairs to play, but that he then came upstairs and punched Briana, that he was throwing things at her, and that he picked her up right before she fell. Later in the interview, Brittany reiterated that at one point in the beating blood was coming out of Briana’s face, and she also stated that Briana fell down the stairs “real hard backward”; that London told her Briana was in trouble; and that London also hit Brittany and pulled her hair.
Moreover, Julie Dunton, who was Brittany’s foster mother for several months, testified that Brittany stated that when Briana’s death occurred, London had sent Brittany and Briana upstairs to play; that London had a visitor and had told Brittany and Briana to be quiet; that Brittany and Briana made some noise; that London came upstairs and hit Briana, causing her to hit her head into a wall; that London then threw Briana down the stairs; and that Briana lay bloody at the bottom of the stairs. Ms. Dunton also testified that Brittany frequently told her that she had nightmares about “a bloody baby at the bottom of the stairs.” According to Ms. Dunton, for several weeks after Brittany came to live with her, Brittany told the foregoing story to everyone she saw.
In addition to testifying about Brittany’s statements about the crime, many of the witnesses who interviewed Brittany, including the three witnesses discussed above, also testified that Brittany’s statements to them were spontaneous, and consistent, and therefore did not appear to be the result of any coaching.
Because seven witnesses other than Brittany’s mother testified about statements that Brittany made to them; because these statements were more detailed than the statement she made to her mother and were not merely cumulative of that statement; because these witnesses offered critical, prejudicial testimony regarding the consistency of Brittany’s statements; and because one of the statements was videotaped and thus had the potential to significantly impact the jury, I cannot conclude that the improperly admitted hearsay statements were harmless under the standard for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless.9
Furthermore, even if I were to apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, I could not conclude that the error in this case was harmless. As I have explained, the statements in question permeated the trial, were highly prejudicial, and were not cumulative of other evidence. Because of the extraordinarily prejudicial nature of the hearsay statements, and because of the extraordinary *98quantity of the inadmissible statements, I cannot conclude that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.10 In this regard, in adopting the “highly probable” harmless error test in Johnson, we quoted with approval from Traynor, What Makes Error Harmless, The Riddle of Harmless Error (1970), to the effect that the “highly probable” test “ ‘can greatly improve the net worth of the judicial process as it thus holds down excesses either of affirmance that recklessly dampens assurance of a fair day in court or of reversal that needlessly calls for still another fair day at the expense of litigants who are still awaiting their first day in court.’ ”11 In light of the severity of the error involved in the present case, our affirmance today “ ‘recklessly dampens assurance of a fair day in court’ ” for London.
Decided July 16, 2001.
Edwin J. Wilson, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Dana J. Norman, Maria B. Golick, Bruce D. Hornbuckle, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tammie J. Philbrick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion.

 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869) (1976).

 OCGA § 24-3-16.

 269 Ga. 317, 321-323 (496 SE2d 896) (1998).

 269 Ga. at 321-323.

 Jones v. State, 265 Ga. 84, 86 (453 SE2d 716) (1995), quoting Moore v. State, 254 Ga. 674, 677 (333 SE2d 605) (1985).

 Jones, 265 Ga. at 86, quoting Moore, 254 Ga. at 677.

 Jones, 265 Ga. at 86.

 Johnson, 238 Ga. at 61.

 Johnson, 238 Ga. at 61, quoting Traynor at 50-51.