☢ test - Í

court has discretion to allow the jury to rehear recorded statements, if it is done in open court.’ Summage v. State, 248 Ga.App. 559, 561(1), 546 S.E.2d 910 (2001).” Newsome v. State, 324 Ga.App. 665, 751 S.E.2d 474 (November 13, 2013). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion where trial court read to jury portions of arresting officer’s testimony, responsive to their request. “It is well settled ‘that is permissible for the trial judge, in his discretion, to permit the jury at their instigation to rehear requested parts of the evidence after they have retired and begun deliberations.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Barnes v. State, 230 Ga.App. 884, 886(2), 497 S.E.2d 594 (1998). Further, ‘absent special circumstances, which might work an injustice[,]’ it is for the jury to request and to limit what they desire to rehear. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dorsey v. State, 252 Ga.App. 33, 35(2), 555 S.E.2d 498 (2001). Here, where the trial court properly issued cautionary instructions to the jury and limited its re-reading of Officer Green's testimony to only the portions related to the jury's questions, we find no special circumstances that would require reversal, and we find that the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to rehear the testimony it requested. Id.” Boatright v. State, 308 Ga.App. 266, 707 S.E.2d 158 (March 8, 2011). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying jury’s request for a transcript of one victim’s testimony. “In this case, the jury did not specify any portion of P.K.'s testimony that they wanted to rehear, but rather asked for a copy of all of her testimony. The record does not reflect that there was a serious disagreement as to the substance of P.K.'s testimony or that the testimony had been misstated during the course of trial. Under these circumstances, the trial court was authorized to deny the jury's request. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 161, 625 S.E.2d 766 (January 17, 2006). No abuse of discretion where trial court refused jury’s request to rehear certain evidence during deliberations. “‘Whether or not to grant the jury’s request to rehear portions of the evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. [Cits.]’ Morris v. State, 254 Ga. 273, 274(2) (328 S.E.2d 547) (1985). … Moreover, we also note that ‘[i]t has long been the law in Georgia that a judgment will not be reversed because the trial court declines to aid the jury in recalling the evidence and refuses a request to have certain testimony read back. [Cits.]’ Young v. State, 246 Ga.App. 651, 653(2) (541 S.E.2d 670) (2000). See also Schley v. State, 191 Ga.App. 412, 413(2) (382 S.E.2d 120) (1989).” Accord, Holmes v. State , 284 Ga. 330, 667 S.E.2d 71 (September 22, 2008) (no abuse of discretion in “refusing the jury's request either to replay defendant's tape recorded statements or to be given a transcript of the recordings.”); Shank v. State , 290 Ga. 844, 725 S.E.2d 246 (March 19, 2012); Grant v. State , 295 Ga. 126, 757 S.E.2d 831 (April 22, 2014). Hickey v. State, 267 Ga.App. 724, 601 S.E.2d 157 (June 9, 2004). “‘It has been recognized for more than 100 years that it is permissible for the trial judge, in his discretion, to permit the jury at their instigation to rehear requested parts of the evidence after they have retired and begun deliberations.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Nobles v. State, 233 Ga.App. 63, 65(4) (503 S.E.2d 321) (1998). As in Nobles, the judge here cautioned the jury not to accord the rereading of the testimony any special weight or importance. Id. Parks v. State, 257 Ga.App. 25, 26(2) (570 S.E.2d 350) (2002). See also Glaser v. State, 272 Ga. 757, 759-760(4) (535 S.E.2d 231) (2000).” Accord, Roberts v. State , 278 Ga. 541, 604 S.E.2d 500 (October 25, 2004) (replay of defendant’s videotaped statement to police, with instructions to consider all the evidence); Tollette v. State , 280 Ga. 100, 621 S.E.2d 742 (November 7, 2005) (same); Perez v. State , 280 Ga.App. 241, 633 S.E.2d 572 (June 16, 2006) (replay of victim’s statement; no cautionary instruction required); Ford v. State , 289 Ga.App. 865, 658 S.E.2d 428 (February 29, 2008) (replay of defendant’s videotaped statement to police; no limiting instruction requested or given); Lopez v. State , 291 Ga.App. 210, 661 S.E.2d 618 (April 17, 2008) (re-play of child molestation victim’s videotaped statement to police was not a continuing witness violation; jury cautioned not to “unduly emphasize” it); Duke v. State , 298 Ga.App. 719, 681 S.E.2d 174 (June 17, 2009) (no abuse of discretion in replaying recording of conversation between defendant and his daughter/rape victim at jury’s request); Franklin v. State , 305 Ga.App. 574, 699 S.E.2d 868 (August 12, 2010) (jury properly allowed to re-watch video of drug transaction); Reed v. State , 305 Ga.App. 623, 700 S.E.2d 615 (August 19, 2010) (trial court could replay just witness’s direct examination without cross, per jury’s request); Wright v. State , 322 Ga.App. 622, 745 S.E.2d 866 (July 3, 2013) (trial court could replay molestation victim’s videotaped interview and jury’s request). Tuff v. State, 278 Ga. 91, 597 S.E.2d 328 (May 3, 2004). “[A]fter deliberations have begun, a trial court has discretionary authority to permit the jury, at its request, to rehear testimony in the defendant’s presence. [Cit.] The fact that in this case the testimony was replayed from a recording rather than reread from stenographic notes is of no legal consequence. [Cit.]” Accord, Puga-Cerantes v. State , 281 Ga. 78, 635 S.E.2d 118 (September 18, 2006); Key v. State , 289 Ga.App. 317, 657 S.E.2d 273 (January 25, 2008) (trial court properly let jury re-hear 911 tape in evidence); Olds v. State , 293 Ga.App. 884,