☢ test - Í

Cook v. State, 270 Ga. 820, 514 S.E.2d 657 (March 19, 1999). “[E]vidence of the conduct of police officers during an investigation [is] not admissible when not relevant to the issues at trial,” citing Weems v. State, 269 Ga. 577, 578- 579(2), 501 S.E.2d 806 (1998)), Morris v. State, 264 Ga. 823, 824-825(2), 452 S.E.2d 100 (1995). Here, trial court properly excluded testimony of other persons suspected of the murders in question, who complained of coercive police interrogation and other tactics. “The trial court determined that none of these suspects had actually confessed to the crimes, and noted that Cook had not been interrogated by any of the law enforcement officers who had questioned these suspects. Therefore, the trial court did not err by excluding this evidence as irrelevant.” HHHHH. RE-OPENING EVIDENCE See PROCEDURE – RE-OPENING EVIDENCE , below IIIII. REPLICAS Rudnitskas v. State, 291 Ga.App. 685, 662 S.E.2d 729 (May 7, 2008). “ A weapon that was not actually used in the commission of an offense, but which is similar to that which was so used is generally admissible into evidence. Sinkfield v. State, 231 Ga. 875, 876(2), 204 S.E.2d 588 (1974). See also Cauley v. State, 206 Ga.App. 233, 234(1), 424 S.E.2d 822 (1992); Walker v. State, 186 Ga.App. 61, 62(2), 366 S.E.2d 400 (1988); Fields v. State, 167 Ga.App. 816, 817(2), 307 S.E.2d 712 (1983). ‘Where an article is introduced as a standard of comparison, preliminary evidence showing that in essential respects it offered a trustworthy standard of comparison is sufficient to render it admissible.’[Cit.] Mitchell v. Schofield's Sons Co., 16 Ga.App. 686, 688(2), 85 S.E. 978 (1915). [Defendant’s] reliance upon Paxton v. State, 160 Ga.App. 19, 23(6), 285 S.E.2d 741 (1981) is misplaced. The defendant in Paxton was charged with armed robbery during that period of time when armed robbery could not be committed with any ‘“replica, article, or device having the appearance of an offensive weapon.”’ Thus, proof that the defendant used a real gun was necessary in order to establish his guilt of armed robbery. Because only a toy gun was ever found in the defendant’s possession, there was a dispute as to the actual existence of a real gun and as to the defendant’s guilt of armed robbery. Paxton, supra at 23- 24(6), 285 S.E.2d 741. Under these circumstances, it was reversible error to admit a real gun into evidence, thereby impermissibly bolstering the State’s case and prejudicing the defense.’ Boyd v. State, 264 Ga. 490, 491-492, 448 S.E.2d 210 (1994). See also Parker v. State, 226 Ga.App. 462, 463(4), 486 S.E.2d 687 (1997).” Monsalve v. State, 271 Ga. 523, 519 S.E.2d 915 (September 13, 1999). “The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence over objection an intact .38 caliber bullet during the testimony of the State's forensic investigator. A weapon that is similar to a weapon used in a crime, but was not actually used in the crime's commission, is generally admissible into evidence so long as a proper foundation is laid showing that in essential respects it offers a trustworthy standard of comparison. Boyd v. State, 264 Ga. 490, 491, 448 S.E.2d 210 (1994). In this case, the State's forensic expert testified that the .38 caliber bullet introduced into evidence matched the bullet core (or projectile) that had been removed from the victim's skull during the autopsy. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the .38 caliber bullet into evidence, because it was relevant to prove the type of bullet that caused the victim's death .” JJJJJ. REPUTATION See WITNESSES – CHARACTER, below KKKKK. RES GESTAE See subheadings HEARSAY – RES GESTAE, and CHARACTER – CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARREST/OFFENSE/RES GESTAE, above, and SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS – EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF CHARGED OFFENSE/RES GESTAE, below LLLLL. RULE OF COMPLETENESS See WITNESSES – PRIOR STATEMENTS – COMPLETENESS, below MMMMM. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE See also subheading CORPUS DELICTI, above, and SUBSTANCES, IDENTIFICATION OF, below 1. GENERALLY Seminal case: Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982) Pate v. State, 318 Ga.App. 526, 734 S.E.2d 255 (November 15, 2012). Conviction for selling cocaine affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown in failure to object to evidence of field tests of suspected cocaine. “‘[C]hemical field tests of suspected cocaine are not novel, and have been widely accepted in Georgia courts. Indeed, in prior cases involving such chemical field testing, we have expressly stated that we have found no case where the results of a chemical field test have been held inadmissible, and instead have indicated that the proper trial procedure is to admit the chemical field test results and then allow for a thorough and sifting cross-examination by defense counsel as to the reliability of the testing