Court Opinion

ID: 9848165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:14:01.726676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.204793
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Justice,
concurring specially. I concur in the judgment in this case but not in all that is said in the majority opinion.
*463The testimony of Smith was admissible under the decisions of this court in Park v. State, 225 Ga. 618 (170 SE2d 687) and Code § 38-314, for such testimony had been subject to cross examination by the defendant’s counsel at the commitment hearing.
The prior statements of Lingerfelt and Ratledge, not amounting to confessions, were admissible as statements made during the pendency of the conspiracy under Code § 38-306, as recognized in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74 (91 SC 210, 27 LE2d 213).
While the method of presenting such evidence, reading a part of such statement and asking the witness if he had so stated, may be subject to criticism it does not constitute reversible error.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Presiding Justice Grice concurs in this special concurrence.