doing so in front of Lee. 7 The jury found that Lee committed the murder while engaged in the commission of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury, that he committed the murder for himself or another for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value, and that the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved an aggravated battery to the victim before death. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2), (4), (7). 8 We note that the habeas court relied on affidavit testimony it previously ruled inadmissible as hearsay to find that Lee’s mother also told him at the time that his father’s Silverado was his “child support.” 9 We offer no opinion as to the admissibility of these documents. See Smith u. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 249
holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase