☢ test - Í
entirety, and then testify that it did not contain certain descriptive information, Thompson’s counsel introduced new evidence into the record.” West v. State, 265 Ga.App. 339, 593 S.E.2d 874 (January 29, 2004). “The record shows that, during direct examination of a police officer, the State formally offered the videotape of the execution of the search warrant as evidence, and it was admitted into evidence by the trial court without objection. The State played the videotape during the direct examination, but without the audio portion of the videotape turned on. During cross-examination of the officer, defense counsel also played the previously admitted videotape, but with the audio turned on, and had the officer describe where the contraband was found and where the co-defendants and West were located in relation to it. The entire videotape, both visual and audio portions, was formally offered as evidence by the State and admitted into evidence by the trial court during the direct examination. Although the State did not play the audio portion, it was still admitted into evidence and was part of the record. Accordingly, the defense did not introduce evidence when it later played the videotape with the audio turned on, but merely used evidence already admitted and made part of the record.” Trial court erred in denying defendant right to open and conclude. Error was harmless as to counts where evidence was overwhelming, but reversal required on one count where evidence was not overwhelming. Sheriff v. State, 277 Ga. 182, 587 S.E.2d 27 (October 6, 2003). Trial court erroneously refused to allow defendant’s two lawyers to share closing argument, where state had right to open and conclude. OCGA § 17-8-70 prohibition against two attorneys making concluding argument only applies to the party with right to open and conclude; the argument in the middle is not ‘concluding’ argument. “We note … that OCGA § 17-8-70 is not an accurate codification of the law,” as the words “for each side” have been inserted in the last sentence, relating to concluding argument. Reverses 258 Ga.App. 423, 574 S.E.2d 449 (2002). Accord, Ayers v. State , 286 Ga.App. 898, 650 S.E.2d 370 (July 16, 2007) (Kidnapping, child molestation and other convictions reversed; “the trial court erred in denying Ayers’s request to have both of his attorneys present closing argument on his behalf.”). Allen v. State, 263 Ga.App. 350, 587 S.E.2d 833 (September 24, 2003). Defense forfeited right to open and conclude closing argument when counsel read aloud a handwritten note on a greeting card from victim, then questioned police officer about it. “Even though the card had been marked by the State for identification prior to showing it to the witness, neither the State nor the defense tendered the card into evidence.” “[W]ith the reading of the handwritten note Allen introduced his view of evidence not previously brought out by the prosecution. Under the guise of cross-examination, Allen was able to introduce his theory” of the case. Jones v. State, 260 Ga.App. 487, 580 S.E.2d 278 (March 21, 2003). “Jones’ counsel quoted only one word from the police report, and that quote related directly to impeaching the witness. Thus, counsel did not introduce evidence that would defeat Jones’ right to open and close final arguments. Under Georgia law, harm is presumed from the denial of this important right.” Accord, Thomas v. State , 262 Ga.App. 492, 589 S.E.2d 243 (July 10, 2003) (reference to and display of documents – i.e., police report – not introduced did not amount to introduction of evidence.) McFarlin v. State, 259 Ga.App. 838, 578 S.E.2d 546 (February 25, 2003). “McFarlin’s codefendants cross-examined a physician regarding the contents of medical reports on the victim, not to impeach the physician but to present evidence regarding the victim's intoxication and emotional state at the time of the incident.” In so doing, all defendants lost right to open and close final arguments. (“Offering the contents of an exhibit to the jury in this manner will not divest the defendant of the right to open and close if the material offered is limited to impeachment of the witness by prior inconsistent statement.”) Smith v. State, 276 Ga. 263, 577 S.E.2d 548 (February 24, 2003). “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant in a criminal case the right to show the possible bias of a witness by cross-examining him concerning pending criminal charges or a pending probation revocation. However, certified copies of court documents relating to such matters are not admissible. These same rules logically apply to first offender probation status because in that situation there has not been an adjudication of guilt and the matter remains pending. See OCGA § 42-8-60. Thus, Smith should have been permitted to cross-examine the witness regarding his first offender treatment to show bias without being required to introduce documents of the witness’ first offender status. It follows that (1) the trial court erred in requiring Smith to introduce the witness’ first offender record and (2) Smith should not have lost the right to open and conclude argument.”
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator