explaining “Code [section] 38-302 [predecessor to section 24-3-2] should be understood not as an exception to the rule against hearsay but as an explanation of what is not hearsay”
How later courts described this case
- explaining “Code [section] 38-302 [predecessor to section 24-3-2] should be understood not as an exception to the rule against hearsay but as an explanation of what is not hearsay”
- detectives’ testimony offered to prove that the deceased was raped and that the defendant committed the rape was hearsay and was inadmissible to explain detectives’ conduct, but error in admitting the testimony was harmless
- hearsay generally includes statements made out of court that are offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated in the out-of-court statement
- when the conduct and motives of the actor are at issue, hearsay may be admitted to explain the actor’s conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Benham v. State, 259 Ga. 249 (1989)
Momon v. State, 249 Ga. 865 (294 SE2d 482) (1982), relied upon by Benham, is inapplicable.
The opinion
Jordan, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
My reason for dissenting is that I consider the standard laid down in the majority opinion too severely restricts the application of Code § 38-302. While the use of that Code Section by law enforcement officers has perhaps been abused at times, I do not find this sufficient reason for restricting its application in proper cases. I therefore dissent to the majority opinion’s narrow interpretation of this Code Section.
I am authorized to state that Justice Marshall joins in this dissent.