Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Deen
Thе appellant, Norman Johnson, was conviсted of arson and sentenced to 12 years’ imрrisonment. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to supрort the verdict.
1. Viewing the evidence in the light most fаvorable to the jury verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the appеllant guilty of arson beyond a reasonable dоubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Moreover, if accepted by the trier оf fact, the state’s evidence, although entirely circumstantial, would exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the appellant’s guilt. Powell *621v. State, 171 Ga. App. 876 (1) (321 SE2d 745) (1984).
2. After the state and the dеfense rested and the evidence was clоsed, the trial court recessed until the following morning. During the overnight recess, one of the defense witnesses, who was in jail at the time of the trial, cаlled a girl friend and made certain statements that impeached his trial testimony. The girl friend callеd the police, who provided her with a tape recorder, and later recorded a second telephone conversation she had with this witness. During that conversation, the witness engaged in banter and bragging, but also insinuated that he had liеd at trial to help the appellant. When thе court reconvened the following morning, the triаl court allowed the state to reopen the evidence and play the tape recording. The witness, although available since he was still in jail, was not recalled and confrontеd with the subsequent inconsistent statements.
In Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858 (286 SE2d 717) (1982), the Supremе Court held that a prior inconsistent statement оf a witness who takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination is admissible as substantive evidencе. In Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (334 SE2d 661) (1985), that rule was extended to prior consistent statements. We detect no logical obstacle to extending this general principle and admitting a subsequent inconsistent statement as substantive evidence, provided the proper foundation is laid by confronting the witness with the inconsistent statement and subjecting that witness to cross-examination. Cf. Harden v. State, 166 Ga. App. 536 (304 SE2d 748) (1983);
Judgment reversed.
Birdsong, C. J., and Pope, J., concur.