Court Opinion

ID: 9846053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:33:38.36326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:31.927735
License: Public Domain

Hines, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion but write separately to note that in the recent case of Hayes v. State, 268 Ga. 809 (493 SE2d 169) (1997), this Court held that abridgement of the two hour limit provided for closing argument in capital felonies does not always demand reversal. It is unquestionably error, and error of such magnitude that harm is presumed. Id. at 813 (7). However, that presumption may be overcome. Id. In Hayes, the majority found the presumption was overcome, and the dissenters believed the presumption was not overcome under the facts of the case.
It is unnecessary to determine whether the presumption of harm is overcome in this case because of the decision in Division 2 that harmful error occurred.