☢ test - Í

(1985). ‘Orders prepared ex parte do not violate due process and should not be vacated unless a party can demonstrate that the process by which the judge arrived at them was fundamentally unfair.’ Fuller v. Fuller, 279 Ga. 805, 806 (621 S.E.2d 419) (2005). In this case, appellant has failed to show that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous and has failed to demonstrate that the process by which the trial court arrived at its findings was fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, this enumerated error cannot be sustained.” Accord, Brockman (March 4, 2013), above. In re: D.D., 310 Ga.App. 329, 713 S.E.2d 440 (June 29, 2011). Delinquency adjudication remanded to perfect record as to whether harmful ex parte communication occurred between juvenile judge and prosecuting officer. Appellate record here is incomplete, but includes email from school resource officer to judge saying he “relayed your message to the school administrators at [D.D.'s middle school]. They wished me to relay to you that they thank you and they appreciate your thoughts regarding this morning's juvenile hearing.” “D.D. asserts that this e-mail not only constitutes an ex parte communication in and of itself but that it also makes reference to a separate communication, the contents of which are unknown.” “We also note that ex parte communications are presumptively harmful error. See UNIF. SUP.CT. R. 4.1 (‘[J]udges shall neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications by interested parties or their attorneys concerning a pending or impending proceeding.’); see also City of Pendergrass v. Skelton, 278 Ga.App. 37, 39(1) (628 S.E.2d 136) (2006) (‘Ex parte communications are presumed to have been in error.’).” Error may be waived or shown to be not harmful, however. Given incomplete record, “we must remand this case to the juvenile court for consideration of the following issues: (1) when D.D. first learned of this e-mail communication and whether a waiver has occurred; [fn: See Ga. Power Co. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 196 Ga.App. 572, 572–73(1) (396 S.E.2d 562) (1990) (holding that complaint of ex parte communication had been waived on appeal when party did not raise the issue at the first opportunity); see also In re: Martin, [218 Ga.App. 79, 80(1) (460 S.E.2d 304) (1995)] (suggesting that waiver may have occurred when no objection was raised below). Here, the record reflects that the e-mail was received by the judge and filed with the clerk of court the day before the adjudicatory hearing, but there is no indication in the record as to when D.D. first learned of this communication. ] and if a waiver has not occurred, (2) whether the State is nevertheless capable of rebutting the presumption of error through affidavits, sworn testimony, or other evidence. Cf. Stephens v. State, 270 Ga. 354, 360(4) (509 S.E.2d 605) (1998) (explaining that on prior remand for a hearing on the issue of ex parte communication, State presented testimony regarding alleged ex parte communication and trial court examined relevant documents).” AA. EXPERTS, MOTION FOR FUNDS TO HIRE Rolland v. State, 321 Ga.App. 661, 742 S.E.2d 482 (April 30, 2013). DUI conviction affirmed; no prejudice in denial of post-trial motion for funds to hire expert witness. Defendant contended that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek funds to hire an expert to challenge the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer machine. Motion was defective, however: “[a]mong other things, the motion should ‘identify by name and qualifications a specific expert’ sought by the defendant. [ Crawford v. State, 267 Ga. 881, 884(2) (485 S.E.2d 461) (1997)]. See Hall v. State, 255 Ga.App. 631, 633(3) (566 S.E.2d 374) (2002) (motion for funds to hire an expert should include, among other things, ‘the identity of the expert’). Compare Dingler v. State, 281 Ga.App. 721, 722(1) (637 S.E.2d 120) (2006) (motion for funds not defective for failing to identify expert by name, where ‘the identity of [the defendant's] proposed expert was known to the trial court since the court previously had provided [the defendant] with funds to enter into preliminary discussions with his proposed expert’). Rolland cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his post-trial motion for funds because his written motion failed to identify by name and qualifications a specific expert sought by him, and, unlike in Dingler, the trial court had not otherwise been made aware of the identity of a proposed expert through prior proceedings in the case.” Also no prejudice shown, as office admitted on cross that the machine had a “margin of error.” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 739 S.E.2d 332 (March 4, 2013). Felony murder and related convictions, and death penalty, affirmed; no error in denying defendant’s “request for funds for independent expert mental health assistance in preparing mitigation evidence. Brockman's presentation to the trial court in support of this motion consisted of a cover letter and two pages of progress notes from a family counseling center,” none of which indicated that defendant had any mental health issues or substance abuse issues. “The trial court initially ruled that Brockman had not met his burden under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83–87 (105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53) (1985) (indigent defendant has the burden to make a preliminary showing that his sanity will be a significant factor at trial in order to be entitled to expert assistance). However, the trial court reserved its final ruling regarding the disposition of Brockman's motion, offered Brockman the opportunity to be evaluated by a state psychiatrist in order to further develop evidence for his claim, and stated that it was willing to revisit the issue after the evaluation. When Brockman chose not to accept the trial court's offer, the trial court denied his motion. We find no error. Compare Bright v. State, 265 Ga. 265, 275–276(2)(e) (455 S.E.2d 37) (1995) (trial court erred in failing to grant a capital murder defendant expert mental health assistance in preparing mitigation evidence, given his contention that he compulsively murdered two grandparents with