☢ test - Í

Davidson v. State, 257 Ga.App. 260, 570 S.E.2d 698 (September 4, 2002). Discrepancy of over an ounce between weight of cocaine at sheriff’s department and at crime lab, about 7.2% of total sample weight, was not a material discrepancy requiring exclusion of evidence where identity of items was otherwise established. 5. LAB SAMPLES, PURITY Holiman v. State, 313 Ga.App. 76, 720 S.E.2d 363 (November 30, 2011). Physical precedent only. Cocaine trafficking conviction affirmed; “a lab report is sufficient to establish the purity of a mixture containing cocaine. See Stroud v. State, 286 Ga.App. 124, 127(2) (648 S.E.2d 476) (2007); Lombardo v. State, 187 Ga.App. 440, 442(5) (370 S.E.2d 503) (1988).” NNNNN. SENTENCING See major heading SENTENCING, below OOOOO. SEXUAL HISTORY OF VICTIM See subheading RAPE SHIELD STATUTE, above PPPPP. SEXUAL PARAPHERNALIA See subheading PORNOGRAPHY, above QQQQQ. SHOE PRINT COMPARISON EVIDENCE Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 514 S.E.2d 205 (March 8, 1999). “Cromartie contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress plaster cast shoe print evidence, claiming that the comparison of shoes with plaster casts of shoe prints cannot be verified with sufficient scientific certainty to make it admissible in court under the standards set forth in Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 523-26(1), 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982). In Belton v. State, 270 Ga. 671, 512 S.E.2d 614 (1999), we held with regard to this very issue that the standards of admissibility relating to scientific principles or techniques set forth in Harper are not applicable to shoe print identification because ‘the comparison of shoe prints to the external physical characteristics of particular shoes is not a matter of scientific principle or technique.’ Moreover, we note that shoe print comparison evidence has been widely admitted for many years in the courts of this State. See, e.g., Baty v. State, 257 Ga. 371, 359 S.E.2d 655 (1987); Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982); Rhodes v. State, 221 Ga.App. 792, 470 S.E.2d 790 (1996); Hickey v. State, 202 Ga.App. 636, 415 S.E.2d 60 (1992); Kirby v. State, 174 Ga.App. 58, 329 S.E.2d 228 (1985); Hall v. State, 155 Ga.App. 211, 270 S.E.2d 377 (1980). Accordingly, this enumeration lacks merit.” Accord, Pruitt v. State , 270 Ga. 745, 514 S.E.2d 639 (March 19, 1999). Belton v. State , 270 Ga. 671, 512 S.E.2d 614 (February 22, 1999). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly allowed testimony by two witnesses “as experts in the identification of shoe prints.” Contrary to defendant’s argument, this evidence wasn’t subject to requirements of “ Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982), that shoe print identification has reached a level of verifiable certainty. … [A]lthough the witnesses were presented as experts, it was apparent that their testimony did not deal with scientific principles but with observation and comparison of physical objects, with matters not of science but of skill and experience. See OCGA § 24–9–67.” “[T]he comparison of shoe prints to the external physical characteristics of particular shoes is not a matter of scientific principle or technique. Since Harper and its standards are not applicable to the testimony involved in this case, the trial court did not err in failing to apply it.” Analogized to Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga.App. 34(1), 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996) (basic sobriety tests such as the walk and turn, leg left, and reciting alphabet are not scientific tests subject to Harper analysis, but rather “are physical dexterity exercises that common sense, common experience, and the ‘laws of nature’ show are performed less well after drinking alcohol.”). RRRRR. SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS See also subheadings CHARACTER EVIDENCE; HEARSAY – RES GESTAE, and PRIOR DIFFICULTIES , above, and WITNESSES – IMPEACHMENT, below Seminal case: Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 642 (409 S.E.2d 649) (1991). Seminal case under 2013 code (applying Federal Rules) : United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11 th Cir., 2007). 1. BENCH TRIALS Williams v. State, 287 Ga.App. 40, 651 S.E.2d 347 (July 31, 2007). “[B]ecause there is no jury to be prejudiced by evidence of other crimes, ‘ the court in a bench trial has broader discretion in admitting similar transaction evidence than in jury trials. ’ Lloyd v. State, 259 Ga.App. 636, 640-641(2) (577 S.E.2d 854) (2003); see Enloe v. State, 239 Ga.App. 513, 514(2) (520 S.E.2d 925) (1999). And under these circumstances, where there was ample evidence to support Williams’s conviction, it is highly unlikely that the admission of the similar transaction evidence contributed to the trial court’s finding of guilt. See Goldsby v. State, 273 Ga.App. 523, 526(2) (615 S.E.2d 592) (2005).”