Court Opinion

ID: 9577539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:53.426886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:46.612792
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Division 1. I concur in Division 2 but for the reason that OCGA § 24-3-16 authorized the admission of the evidence. The citation to Williams v. State, 180 Ga. App. 562 (1) (349 SE2d 797) (1986) brings into play another exception to the hearsay rule, i.e., res gestae. That would not be applicable here, where the report of the incident was not contemporaneous and thus not generally regarded as an “outcry.” Instead, the report consisted of statements made some four months after the incident, when it could not be said to be “free from all suspicion of device or afterthought.” OCGA § 24-3-3; Taylor v. State, 176 Ga. App. 567, 573 (4) (b) (336 SE2d 832) (1985).