Court Opinion

ID: 9617370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:54:31.25171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:08.732207
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
“[A] defendant is entitled to introduce relevant and admissible testimony tending to show that another person committed the crime *379for which the defendant is tried.” (Emphasis supplied.) Klinect v. State, 269 Ga. 570, 573 (3) (501 SE2d 810) (1998), citing Henderson v. State, 255 Ga. 687, 689 (1) (341 SE2d 439) (1986). While I agree that the fact that Wandisia Buffington had allegedly abused her own children in the past may have been relevant in this case, the only evidence of any such abuse proffered by Scott was inadmissible hearsay which the trial court properly excluded. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
To support the allegation of Buffington’s past behavior, Scott proffered an “intake worksheet” used by DFACS to process incoming claims of abuse. This worksheet contained the allegations of Buffing-ton’s neighbor that Buffington had physically abused her children. The worksheet, itself, is hearsay, and the neighbor’s statement, on which Scott relied to show prior physical abuse, constitutes hearsay within hearsay. As a general rule, hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible. See, e.g., Harper v. State, 152 Ga. App. 689, 690 (1) (263 SE2d 547) (1979). Scott provided no proffer to the trial court to overcome this prohibition and provide a basis for the admission of the neighbor’s accusation as an exception to the rule against hearsay. He proffered no testimony from the DFACS employee who filled out the intake worksheet,7 no testimony from the caseworker to whom the intake worksheet was assigned,8 and no testimony from the neighbor who made the allegations. Accordingly, the accusation made by Buffington’s neighbor is inadmissible double hearsay, and the trial court did not err by excluding it.
The majority nonetheless would reverse Scott’s conviction because he was not allowed to impeach Buffington with DFACS processing forms which indicated that parenting courses had been recommended for Buffington. McAllister v. State, 258 Ga. 795 (375 SE2d 36) (1989), however, requires a different result. In McAllister, the defendant gave testimony regarding whether the victim made a certain phone call. The trial court then allowed the State to impeach the defendant’s testimony using telephone company records which had not been shown by the State to be admissible under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. We found that the trial court erred in allowing the hearsay documents to be used for *380impeachment, noting that, “[w]hile a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness may be used for impeachment, there is no general rule of law which allows all hearsay evidence to be used for impeachment.” Id. at 797 (6), n. 2. As the State didin McAllister, the defendant in this case argues that he should have been allowed to impeach a witness with documents which he failed to show were subject to a hearsay exception. Such an impeachment procedure, however, is inappropriate, and the trial court properly disallowed it. Accordingly, Scott’s conviction should be affirmed.
Decided November 20, 2006
Reconsideration denied December 15, 2006.
Thomas S. Robinson III, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Marc A. Mallon, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Edwina M. Watkins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins in this dissent.

 Even if Scott had attempted to introduce the intake worksheet and the neighbor’s accusation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, he could not have done so. To the extent that the intake worksheet “noted the contents of a conversation, not an act, transaction, occurrence, or event, the business records exception to the hearsay rule was inapplicable. [Cit.]” Mitchell v. State, 254 Ga. 353, 355 (5) (a) (329 SE2d 481) (1985).

 Although Scott did indicate that he had subpoenaed Deon Thomas, one of Buffington’s caseworkers, Thomas was not Buffington’s caseworker at the time that the accusations were made, and, in any event, Scott proffered no testimony from Thomas regarding the validity of the accusations made against Buffington.