concluding that admission of police report was harmless error, where witness had already testified to precisely same information that was contained in report before it was admitted
How later courts described this case
- concluding that admission of police report was harmless error, where witness had already testified to precisely same information that was contained in report before it was admitted
- holding admission of evidence harmless because evidence was cumulative of other evidence admitted
- holding admission harmless because evidence was cumulative of other evidence admitted
- any error in admission of police report was harmless where information contained therein was cumulative of witness's testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DARDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I wholly agree with the majority’s conclusion that the police report was inadmissible hearsay. However, I cannot agree that the admission of the report was harmless error. My reading of Helms’s testimony leads me to conclude that Helms’s previous testimony did not include “precisely the same information that was contained in the police report.” Op. at 947. Of particular concern to me is Helms’s unequivocal testimony at least three times that he did not remember telling the officer that Davis “walked into” Garrett’s vehicle. (Tr. 156, 157). Such testimony, in my opinion, falls short of being testimony by Helms that Davis “walked into & fell down beside” Garrett’s vehicle, as stated in the report. (Ex. G). Further, I find that Helms’s previous testimony also was not consistent with the report’s statement that the witness (Helms) had reported that after falling to the pavement, Davis “got up and quickly walked out of the street.” Id. Hence, I do not find the report’s contents to be “merely cumulative of Helms’s testimony on cross examination.” Op. at 947. I therefore conclude that it does affect the substantial rights of Garrett, and that its admission constituted reversible error. Accordingly, I would reverse.
ORDER
On January 17, 2008, the Court handed down its opinion in this appeal marked Memorandum Decisions, Not for Publication. The Appellant, by counsel, has filed a Motion to Publish Not for Publication Memorandum Decision.
Having considered the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Appellant Motion to Publish is Granted and this court’s opinion heretofore handed down in this cause on January 17, 2008, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication is now ORDERED PUBLISHED.
BAKER, C.J., DARDEN, BRADFORD, JJ., concur.