the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a first offender record of an adverse witness in a civil case was admissible to impeach the witness by showing the witness had been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. In Witcher, unlike Favors, the Supreme Court was not concerned with a “balancing of rights” but instead based its ruling on the express language of the statute and the obvious intent of the General Assembly. The court thus reasoned that since there was no “conviction” in a case given first offender treatment, the first offender record could not be used to impeach an adverse witness by showing that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Compare Hightower v. General Motors Corp., 255 Ga. 349, 351 (338 SE2d 426) (1986) (<HOLDING>). By examining the Supreme Court’s decisions in
holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding alford plea admissible in burglary prosecution holding first offender plea admissible to disprove or contradict testimony of the plaintiff holding that evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to disprove a plaintiffs comparative fault is inadmissible holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible