Court Opinion

ID: 9614751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:27:55.785927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:36.829740
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the conviction and sentence in this case should be affirmed. I write, however, to call attention to the holding of Division 4, and to invite attention to our recent case of Lolley v. State, 259 Ga. 605 (385 SE2d 285) (1989). There the same issue arose. Two Justices dissented to the continued application of the rule that the violent character of a deceased may not be shown by evidence of specific acts of violence against third persons. Three Justices were of the opinion that the rule should be changed, but were unwilling to reverse the case, as the trial court had applied the rule then in existence. Thus, five Justices believe that the rule should be changed.
At such time as Lolley, supra, appears in the advance sheets of the Supreme Court Reports, I will give serious consideration to applying the alternative rule suggested in the dissenting and concurring opinions of Lolley.
I am authorized to state that Justice Bell joins in this concurrence.
*658Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Rebecca A. Keel, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Richard C. Litwin, for appellee.