Court Opinion

ID: 9574167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:02:55.174028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:09.766215
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice,
concurring specially.
As correctly stated by the majority, our case law has consistently held that testimony that merely refers to a defendant by his or her street name or nickname does not automatically suggest bad character.2 However, I believe it is possible for a street name to be so closely linked with the circumstances of a crime that it may, when recited in the jury’s presence, tend to suggest the defendant’s bad reputation or propensity to commit specific criminal acts. In those situations, I believe that trial courts should consider whether the probative value associated with recitation of the street name in the jury’s presence is outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the jury’s hearing the defendant referred to by a nickname that explicitly suggests guilt.
I draw no conclusions, however, regarding whether the trial court in this case erred by not making this determination, because I believe that even if such error did occur, it was outweighed by the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt.

 See Riley v. State, 268 Ga. 640 (491 SE2d 802) (1997); Gresham v. State, 265 Ga. 730, 732 (462 SE2d 370) (1995).