Court Opinion

ID: 9850447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:57:34.231984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:37.399397
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, Justice,
concurring specially.
I write separately because I believe that Division 5 of the majority opinion unfairly hamstrings the State in cross-examining a defendant who implies that he or she has no criminal record.
Harris was asked by her attorney on direct examination if she had ever been convicted of a felony, and she replied that she had not. In my opinion, this testimony opened the door to allow the State to ask Harris on cross-examination whether she had been convicted of lesser crimes of moral turpitude. The majority opinion would slam that door.
In Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467 (228 SE2d 853) (1976), defendant testified on direct examination that he “never robbed anybody” and “never stole anything from home or my mother.” On cross-examination, the State then asked defendant if he had “ever broken the law” or was “ever in Reidsville.” This Court found no error, holding:
[Defendant] on direct examination put his character in issue. He denied his involvement in the crime for which he was being tried and went further by adding that he had *530“never robbed anybody” nor “stolen anything from home or my mother.” These additional averments by the [defendant] placed his character in issue and justified cross examination on this point. Once a defendant “opens the door” for character evidence, specific events may be used in testing the extent and foundation of the defendant’s knowledge and the correctness of his testimony on direct examination. [Cits.]
Id. at 468.
Brown was decided correctly and is applicable here. As in Brown, the defendant in this case placed her good character in issue on direct examination. Harris did more than simply deny that she committed the crime for which she was being tried; she went further and made additional statements in which she denied that she ever committed a felony. Compare Lindler v. State, 149 Ga. App. 155 (253 SE2d 833) (1979). In so doing, Harris implied that she had no prior criminal record, see Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 759 (1) (b) (363 SE2d 529) (1988), and she opened the door to questions about that record. Compare Lester v. State, 145 Ga. App. 847, 849 (244 SE2d 880) (1978). It cannot be said, therefore, that the trial court erred in permitting the State to question Harris about her prior misdemeanor convictions.