☢ test - Í

Pierce v. State, 255 Ga.App. 194, 564 S.E.2d 790 (April 30, 2002). Part of the audio recording of defendant’s custodial statement admitting to shootings was garbled due to a malfunction of the tape recording. Admission of the recording held not to be error: “[w]hen a recording is inaudible, its admissibility is subject to question; but when material portions are inaudible, then the recording should be rejected when it is the only evidence offered as to the statement. See Kelley v. State, 168 Ga.App. 911, 913 (311 S.E.2d 180) (1983). Here, [the officer] who conducted the custodial interview testified at considerable length about the contents of the statement and was extensively cross-examined about it. Moreover, the victim’s testimony as well as the physical evidence accumulated at the crime scene, including shell casings, the two weapons, and tire tracks, provided independent corroboration of the key details provided by [defendant] in his statement. Plainly, the audiotape did not constitute the only evidence of [defendant]’s statement. Nor does [defendant] claim that the garbled or inaudible portion contained anything favorable to him.” Accord, Whitehead v. State , 258 Ga.App. 271, 574 S.E.2d 351 (November 6, 2002). Daker v. State , 243 Ga.App. 848, 533 S.E.2d 393 (April 11, 2000). Aggravated stalking convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted into evidence an audiotape of a telephone conversation between defendant and victim. “The tape was made by Daker. He argues that the State did not lay the foundation required for its admission because gaps in it show that it had been altered while in police custody. See Johnson v. State, 271 Ga. 375, 378(4), 519 S.E.2d 221 (1999). Because the evidence authorized the court to find that the gaps were caused by the manner in which Daker had recorded the conversation, we find no error in its admission in evidence.” Brady v. State, 270 Ga. 574, 513 S.E.2d 199 (March 1, 1999). “Whether to admit into evidence a tape recording of a conversation when part of the conversation is inaudible is in the trial court’s discretion. Guess v. State, 264 Ga. 335, 336(2), 443 S.E.2d 477 (1994).” 6. TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS/WIRETAPS See subheading TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS/WIRETAPS, below 7. TRANSCRIPTS Baker v. State, 316 Ga.App. 122, 728 S.E.2d 767 (June 6, 2012). Statutory rape conviction affirmed; no error in presentation of “unauthenticated transcripts” of 911 calls to jury along with the recordings themselves. Trial court here following procedure authorized by Georgia Supreme Court: “the State lays a proper foundation for the admission of the recording, the court gives a cautionary instruction that the transcript itself is not evidence; the jury uses the transcript to assist them in listening to the recording; and the transcript is not part of the evidence that goes out with the jury. Turner v. State, 245 Ga.App. 476, 477(1) (538 S.E.2d 125) (2000), following Washington v. State, 268 Ga. 598, 600(3) (492 S.E.2d 197) (1997). Because the transcript was not, in fact, admitted into evidence, Gaston v. State, 180 Ga.App. 470 (349 S.E.2d 526) (1986), is not on point.” Turner v. State, 245 Ga.App. 476, 538 S.E.2d 125 (August 4, 2000). Statutory rape and related convictions affirmed. Trial court properly allowed jury to read transcript of telephone conversation between defendant and victim as tape of the conversation was played. “It was not error to allow the jurors to use the transcript as a tool to assist them in listening to the audiotape. In Washington v. State , 268 Ga. 598, 600(3), 492 S.E.2d 197 (1997), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err in permitting a jury to read a transcript as they listened to a tape. The court stated two reasons for its decision: first, the state had laid a proper foundation for the admission of the tape, and, second, the court had given a cautionary instruction that the transcript itself was not evidence. Id . … The transcript itself was not admitted as evidence, because it was merely provided as a tool to facilitate listening to the tape.” Trial court charged jury that the transcript was “what somebody else thinks they heard on the tape. The judgment of what is said on that tape is your judgment…. And it’s the tape that is the evidence.” 8. VIDEO RECORDINGS Tyner v. State, 313 Ga.App. 557, 722 S.E.2d 177 (January 12, 2012). Shoplifting conviction affirmed; trial court properly allowed store security officer to “narrate while the surveillance video was played for the jury.” “[T]he trial court did not err in allowing the officer to testify regarding what was depicted on the surveillance videotape, as the ‘testimony offered no opinion but merely pointed out factual evidence which supported the contentions of the State, evidence already before the jury,’” quoting Wright v. State, 301 Ga.App. 178, 180(2) (687 S.E.2d 195) (2009) (punctuation omitted). State v. Madison, 311 Ga.App. 31, 714 S.E.2d 714 (July 13, 2011). In child molestation prosecution, trial court properly suppressed video recordings of “interactions between [victim] and Madison,” on grounds “that the recordings were