☢ test - Í

668 S.E.2d 485 (October 8, 2008). Odom v. State , 243 Ga.App. 227, 531 S.E.2d 207 (March 15, 2000). Aggravated sodomy and related convictions affirmed. During deliberations, trial court properly allowed jury to re-view, in open court, the victim’s videotaped testimony. “Odom claims that, although he did not request cautionary instructions, the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte issue a cautionary instruction either prior to or following the jury's review of the tapes. ‘The rule in this state is that the trial judge, in his discretion, may permit the jury at their request to rehear in the defendant's presence the requested testimony after beginning deliberation. The jury is entitled to designate the testimony which it desires to rehear, in the absence of special circumstances which might work an injustice. While some later cases approve of cautionary instructions they do not demand that they be given so as to require reversal in the event such instructions are not given.’ (Citation omitted.) Farrow v. State, 222 Ga.App. 689, 691(2), 475 S.E.2d 706 (1996).” Lee v. State, 241 Ga.App. 182, 525 S.E.2d 426 (November 18, 1999). Defendant’s statutory rape conviction affirmed. “It is permissible for the trial judge, in her discretion, to permit the jury to rehear requested parts of the evidence after the jury has begun deliberations. Havron v. State, 234 Ga.App. 413, 416(4), 506 S.E.2d 421 (1998). Under the circumstances of the instant case, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the jury's request to re-view the videotape, while denying the jury's broad request to rehear all of the testimony of three witnesses. See Eackles v. State, 270 Ga. 558, 563(8), 512 S.E.2d 635 (1999); Rutledge v. State, 237 Ga.App. 390, 393(5), 515 S.E.2d 1 (1999); Havron, supra.” Martin v. State, 240 Ga.App. 901, 525 S.E.2d 728 (November 18, 1999). Court could replay victim’s entire testimony after jury requested to re-hear a portion of it, to avoid placing undue emphasis on requested testimony. Brown v. State, 239 Ga.App. 674, 522 S.E.2d 41 (August 18, 1999). Court properly allowed jury to review videotape of attempted traffic stop and police chase since jurors stated they disagreed about what they saw on the tape. Scroggins v. State, 237 Ga.App. 122, 514 S.E.2d 252 (March 18, 1999). Trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury to rehear testimony of witnesses, the substance of whose testimony was disputed by counsel during closing argument and was the subject of comment by the court. “A serious disagreement existed regarding whether defense counsel misstated the evidence. And allowing the jury to rehear the disputed testimony would have settled that dispute unequivocally, while causing little, if any, harm.” The witnesses’ testimony was critical to the defense. “Given defense counsel’s purpose in referring to the doctor’s testimony and its importance to the defense, together with the specific request made by the jury to clarify the doctors’ testimony, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to hear it.” Selley v. State, 237 Ga.App. 47, 514 S.E.2d 706 (March 16, 1999). “The trial court properly allowed the jury to hear Selley’s taped confession again during deliberation. ‘The replaying of evidence which the jury asked to hear is within the discretion of the trial court. [Cits.]’ Brooks v. State, 231 Ga.App. 561, 564(4), 500 S.E.2d 11 (1998).” Accord, Glaser v. State , 272 Ga. 757, 535 S.E.2d 231 (September 11, 2000). Rutledge v. State, 237 Ga.App. 390, 515 S.E.2d 1 (March 15, 1999). Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting jury’s request to rehear part of one prosecution witness’s testimony, but denying request to rehear all of a defense witness’s testimony. “‘The rule in this state is that the trial judge, in his discretion, may permit the jury at their request to rehear in the defendant’s presence the requested testimony after beginning deliberation.’ Johns v. State, 239 Ga. 681, 683(2), 238 S.E.2d 372 (1977). Likewise, ‘[t]he court may also, in its discretion, refuse such a request.’ Byrd v. State, 237 Ga. 781, 783(1), 229 S.E.2d 631 (1976). ‘Of course, jury requests should not be arbitrarily or capriciously denied.’ Williams v. State, 205 Ga.App. 445, 446(2), 422 S.E.2d 309 (1992). In this case, the trial court agreed to the jury’s request to have read a limited portion of the police officer's testimony. Shortly thereafter, the jury requested to have all of Davis’ testimony read. Although the judge refused this request, he advised the jurors that if they could point to a specific portion of Davis’ testimony, he would reconsider. The jurors never provided a specific portion of Davis’ testimony that they wanted to hear. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to read back all of Davis’ testimony. See Haynes v. State, 180 Ga.App. 202(1), 349 S.E.2d 208 (1986).” Accord, Johnson (February 9, 1999), below. Johnson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 356, 511 S.E.2d 921 (February 9, 1999). No abuse of discretion here in granting one request to rehear testimony but denying another. “Defendants contend the trial court erred in granting the jury’s request to rehear an investigating officer’s testimony while, at the same time, denying the jury’s request to rehear the