☢ test - Í

evidentiary portion of the trial. Williams [ v. State, 254 Ga. 508, 511(3) (330 S.E.2d 353) (1985)]. This tactic, after the close of evidence, gave Mowoe no chance to rebut the prosecutor's demonstration with evidence showing the defense's efforts to contact Wise before and during trial. The prosecution could easily have used a similar demonstration at trial during the cross-examination of Mowoe, but if the State had done so, Mowoe could have asked for the opportunity to rebut it by putting Wise on the stand. … Thus, we find that ‘[t]his demonstration should have taken place during trial or not at all.’ Id. See also Sumlin v. State, 283 Ga. 264, 266(2) (658 S.E.2d 596) (2008); Mathis v. State, 276 Ga.App. 587, 587, n. 1 (623 S.E.2d 674) (2005); Rust v. State, 264 Ga.App. 893, 899(3) (592 S.E.2d 525) (2003).” Young v. State, 327 Ga.App. 852, 761 S.E.2d 801 (July 7, 2014). Convictions for online sexual solicitation of children and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to object to detective’s testimony. “[T]rial counsel recalled that he had evaluated the witness, and he decided to not make certain objections or motions to avoid drawing attention to potentially inflammatory testimony: ‘[The witness] was going to, no matter what you say he was going [to] come back and double up on it. He was that kind of guy.’ Instead, trial counsel explained that his strategy was, in part, to show the detective to be a ‘rogue cop, who was just out there to entrap people and ruin their lives.’ ‘Trial counsel's strategy was not unreasonable and thus affords no basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.’ Leonard v. State, 279 Ga.App. 192, 194(2)(a), 630 S.E.2d 804 (2006). See Hargrove v. State, 289 Ga.App. 363, 368(4)(a), 657 S.E.2d 282 (2008) (reasonable tactical decisions ‘are within the lawyer's exclusive province and do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.’) (punctuation omitted).” Hudson v. State, 325 Ga.App. 810, 755 S.E.2d 209 (February 24, 2014). Theft by taking conviction affirmed; 1. no ineffective assistance in failing to object to attempted impeachment of defendant with his brother’s criminal record. “Hudson's trial counsel testified that his decision not to request a mistrial after the State questioned Hudson using the wrong report was strategic because Hudson's truthful answers ‘made [Hudson] look more credible as a witness.’ He further stated that he made the strategic decision not to move for a mistrial because he believed his client had done a good job denying the erroneous charges on the stand and the trial court's curative instruction would show the jury that he had, in fact, been telling the truth.” 2. No ineffective assistance in “failing to object to the State impeaching Hudson without certified copies of the convictions. ‘It is well-settled that evidence of a witness' prior convictions must be tendered and admitted in the form of certified copies of the convictions and not by testimony alone.’ (Citations omitted.) Rucker v. State, 205 Ga.App. 651 (423 S.E.2d 51) (1992). However, ‘[t]he failure to introduce a certified copy of an impeaching prior conviction is subject to a “best evidence” objection ... and such objection may be waived.’ (Citation omitted.) Thomas v. State, 268 Ga. 135, 140(13) (485 S.E.2d 783) (1997). Thus, ‘in the absence of a “best evidence” objection, a witness' answer to the effect that he or she has been convicted of a crime is admissible to prove the crime.’ (Citations omitted.) McIntyre v. State, 266 Ga. 7, 10(4) (463 S.E.2d 476) (1995). Even if we assume that Hudson's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's attempts to impeach him without a certified copy of the conviction, he has not proven that such failure was prejudicial to his defense. The convictions the State sought to impeach Hudson with were either already addressed by him during his direct examination or were his brother's convictions and the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard questions about them.” Dubose v. State, 294 Ga. 579, 755 S.E.2d 174 (February 24, 2014). Felony murder conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to seek redaction of officer’s comments from recording of defendant’s custodial statement. “At times during the interviews, [Agent] Durden told Dubose that he knew Dubose was not telling the truth, and related to Dubose what was said during the investigation by other persons who did not testify at trial. … [T]rial counsel testified during the hearing on the motion for new trial that he wanted the jury to understand ‘how much browbeating, how much interrogation’ had taken place. Given the evidence trial counsel had to combat, including the statement Dubose had given Durden, Dubose fails to show that this was an unreasonable strategy.” Further, “‘[c]omments made in such an interview and designed to elicit a response from a suspect do not amount to opinion testimony, even when [testimony reflecting] the comments is admitted at trial.’ [Cits.],” quoting Butler v. State, 292 Ga. 400, 406 (738 S.E.2d 74) (2013). Cheeks v. State, 325 Ga.App. 367, 750 S.E.2d 753 (November 13, 2013). Rape and related convictions reversed; trial counsel provided ineffective assistance “in failing to object to argument by the State regarding Cheeks' silence and failure to come forward to police.” “At Cheeks' trial, the State argued during its opening statement that Cheeks refused to talk to investigating officers. The prosecutor then called Cheeks' mother as a witness and questioned her extensively regarding Cheeks' failure to turn himself in. And during its closing, the State again contended, repeatedly, that Cheeks refused to speak with and ‘evade[d]’ the police and that he did so because he was guilty: ‘You didn't do anything wrong? Go down and talk to the police. Tell them what happened.’” Counsel testified at motion for new trial that it was her first