Court Opinion

ID: 9589072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:41:20.988435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:00.864186
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissented from the grant of certiorari in this case because I did not think it fit our test: “Rule 29. A review on certiorari is not a right. A petition for the writ will be granted only in cases of great concern, gravity and importance to the public. Rule 30. Subject to Rule 29 certiorari will not be granted: (1) To review the sufficiency of evi*313dence. . . .” Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia (effective July 1, 1984). The question here is simply a matter of construing the sufficiency of the evidence.
Decided October 8, 1986.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, H. Perry Michael, First Assistant Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey C. Baxter, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Bensonetta Tipton Lane, for appellees.
The majority opinion and the Court of Appeals’ opinion did not disagree on the rule of law to be applied. The rule is courts are not to substitute their judgment regarding the weight of the evidence. That matter is to be left to the Board. But Judge Banke’s opinion is not a weighing of the evidence. Instead, the evidence was examined very carefully and found to support but one inference: “. . . the emotional stress suffered by the decedent as a result of the assault had not completely subsided and was a contributing factor in his death.” Thus, there was no evidence to support the finding of the Board. I agree with this view and therefore dissent.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Clarke and Jus- - tice Smith join in this dissent.