Court Opinion

ID: 9575491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:15.350596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:14.633933
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent with respect to Division 1 but concur in Division 2.
Insofar as defendant sought to introduce evidence via the psychiatrist which did not involve privileged communications, such as the extent of her treatment for drug addiction, the effect of crack on a person and on his perception or memory, or the effect of the drug she admittedly had taken before testifying, the trial court erred by not permitting defendant to make proffer of that testimony, as requested. *345It refused to allow defendant to make the proffer offered at the conclusion of the argument on the State’s objection to the psychiatrist’s testifying at all without a waiver of the privilege:
Decided July 12, 1990.
Richard D. Wilson, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Todd E. Naugle, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
“[Defendant’s counsel]: We’d like to make a proffer for the Court of Appeals. I understand the jury won’t hear it, but we’d like to take it up on appeal. The Court: I don’t see any sense in going into all that. We’re trying to get a case tried here.”
“[W]here offer of proof is necessary it is error for the trial court to refuse an opportunity to counsel to state what he proposes to prove by the evidence offered.” Stephen W. Brown &c. Assoc. v. Gowers, 157 Ga. App. 770, 781 (6) (278 SE2d 653) (1981).
■ The judgment of conviction should be reversed and the case remanded in order that defendant be permitted to make an offer of proof. If only psychiatrist-patient communications were involved then the verdict would stand and a new judgment could be entered thereon, but if evidence outside of privileged communications was sought and excluded, then a new trial would have to be granted because the exclusion hampered the establishment of Freeman’s defense. In the former event, and after a conviction in the latter event, a new appeal would lie.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley joins in this opinion.