Court Opinion

ID: 9577777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:38:02.075029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:15.875630
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in all divisions except Division 4. I specially concur with Division 4, which allows the witnesses’ testimony to be bolstered under authority of Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 150 (2) (335 SE2d 869). As pointed out by Justice Bell in his special concurrence in Lumpkin v. State, 255 Ga. 363, 365 (4) (338 SE2d 431), the bolstering in Edwards was allowed because the appellant sought to discredit the witnesses’ testimony. Lumpkin, cited as authority for Division 4, enunciates a departure from Edwards and new law on the issue. Although I disagree with the soundness of Lumpkin as a legal principle, it is the law and for that reason I specially concur. In addition I deem “bolstering” harmless in this case.
*377Decided May 7, 1986
Rehearings dismissed May 27, 1986 and June 17, 1986
James A. Elkins, Jr., for appellant.
William J. Smith, District Attorney, J. Gray Conger, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.