“[I]f the writing is little more than the reduction of or substitute for the person’s oral statements, then the writing ... is not given to the jury.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]f the writing is little more than the reduction of or substitute for the person’s oral statements, then the writing ... is not given to the jury.”
- written statements of the defendant and his co-conspirator
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Davis v. State, 178 Ga. App. 760 (1986)
Perhaps it could be argued that the Royals rule is inapposite in this case, where the person who made the written statement also took the stand and was subjected to cross-examination, but that distinguishing factor has previously been tacitly rejected.
The opinion
Hawkins, Justice,
dissenting. I dissent from the ruling in the 2nd headnote and corresponding division of the opinion, and from the judgment of reversal, for the reason that written evidence is considered of higher proof than oral testimony, and where, as here, the statements of the coconspirator and the defendant were in writing, the written statements were the highest and best evidence, and were properly permitted to go out with the jury. Code, § 38-205.
I am authorized to state that Duckworth, Chief Justice, and Candler, Justice, concur in this dissent.