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
Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree fully with the majority’s analysis of the hearsay issues in this case, I cannot agree that the admission of the disputed evidence was harmless error. In my view, it is unrealistic to contend, as does the'majority opinion, that it is “highly probable” that testimony by police officers describing a prior alleged rape by appellant did not influence the jury and contribute to the guilty verdict on the aggravated sodomy charge. Since the conviction was based in part on inadmissible hearsay, I would reverse.