Roebuck v. State

¶1dissenting.

¶2I agree with Chief Justice Fletcher’s conclusion in his special concurrence that the expert’s testimony regarding the palm print was inadmissible hearsay.14 However, unlike Chief Justice Fletcher,15 I am unwilling to overrule our cases that hold that inadmissible hearsay has no probative value.16 Accordingly, because the only evidence corroborating the accomplice’s testimony was hearsay that has no probative value, I conclude that the accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated. I am thus constrained to conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support Roebuck’s conviction, and I must therefore dissent to the majority opinion.