Andrews v. State

I respectfully dissent. All evidence as to the actual commission of the crime is circumstantial. The state contends that the prior inconsistent statement (in writing) of Travis Sutton that appellant poured a liquid on the sofa ánd in his mother’s bedroom is evidence of appellant’s guilt. However, the state used the prior inconsistent statement to impeach Travis (a state witness), and it is well settled in Georgia that “ [a] prior contradictory statement is admissible for the purpose of impeaching a witness shown to have made it, but is not in itself probative evidence which will tend to prove…