☢ test - Í

23(2)(c), 628 S.E.2d 120 (2006), disapproved in part on other grounds, Schofield v. Holsey, 281 Ga. 809, 811–812(II), n. 1, 642 S.E.2d 56 (2007).” Because the testimony was admissible for this purpose, it didn’t constitute improper bolstering: “where, as here, testimony is admissible for the purpose of showing the effect on the victim or to explain the victim's conduct, the testimony does not constitute improper bolstering. See Painter v. State, 219 Ga.App. 290, 296(7), 465 S.E.2d 290 (1995).” 2. Teacher’s testimony that victim cried very hard before she “finally told them the ‘truth,’” was improper bolstering, but no prejudice shown from the single, isolated, unsolicited remark, given that “I.S.'s account of the sexual abuse remained consistent, and Alford had a full opportunity to test her credibility during cross-examination. Additionally, E.S. testified to similar incidents of sexual abuse.” “Compare Gaston v. State, 317 Ga.App. 645(1), 731 S.E.2d 79 (2012) (admission of bolstering testimony was prejudicial, where, among other things, victim's ‘various accounts contained inconsistencies’); Mann v. State, 252 Ga.App. 70, 73–74(1), 555 S.E.2d 527 (2001) (failure to object to bolstering testimony was prejudicial, where the only evidence of the molestation arose out of statements made by the victim, and the victim gave materially different accounts of what had occurred).” Thomas v. State, 318 Ga.App. 849, 734 S.E.2d 823 (November 28, 2012). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed. 1. Defense waived any objection to allegedly bolstering testimony of victim’s mother by failing to object; “plain error” rule doesn’t apply to admission of bolstering testimony. “‘Under the plain error rule, we will consider issues not properly raised and ruled upon in the trial court where the alleged error is so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.’ (Citation, punctuation, footnotes and emphasis omitted.) Horne v. State, 262 Ga.App. 604, 606(1), 586 S.E.2d 13 (2003). This Court has previously held, however, that the admission of evidence which serves only to bolster another witness's credibility ‘is not the kind of error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.’ (Footnote omitted). Id. Further, ‘no grave miscarriage of justice is likely to result if we allow [Thomas's] procedural default to stand.’ Id.” 2. Social worker’s testimony was properly admitted: “The witness indicated she did not feel the victim had been coached, explaining that the details provided by the victim were not ‘what you would commonly think a kid could make up.’ The witness further explained that in determining whether a child was giving an accurate account of an incident, ‘you're looking for details. You're looking for consistency. You're looking for does it make sense. You're looking for if you ask it differently[,] do they kind of go there.’ The witness then concluded that, during the interview, the victim ‘was able to do that. She didn't get lost when you asked another question. She determined the answer or clarified what she needed to know to determine the answer.’” “‘Establishing the credibility of the indicted acts of sexual abuse is what the State's case is all about and is the purpose for such expert testimony in the first place; the fact that such testimony may also indirectly, though necessarily, involve the child's credibility does not make it inadmissible.’ (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Odom [ v. State, 243 Ga.App. 227, 227-228(1), 531 S.E.2d 207 (2000)]. … There was no error in admitting this testimony because, although it supported the child's claims, it did not ‘directly address the credibility of the victim or express a direct opinion that the victim was sexually abused.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 229(1)(a), 531 S.E.2d 207.” Accord, Hoke v. State , 326 Ga.App. 71, 755 S.E.2d 876 (March 10, 2014). 3. Victim’s own statements about the veracity of her statements and testimony were not improper bolstering. “We know of no legal reason … why a witness should ‘be prohibited on direct examination from asserting his own credibility by testifying that he is telling the truth and giving some explanation.’ (Citations omitted.) [ Handley v. State, 289 Ga. 786, 788(2)(a), 716 S.E.2d 176 (2011)]. Allowing a witness to explain prior recantations and to assert that she is now being truthful still leaves the issue of credibility up to the jury, which is free to believe or disbelieve all or part of the victim's testimony, including her assertion as to her truthfulness. Here, the victim testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination by the defendant, ‘thereby giving the jury the opportunity to judge her demeanor and credibility during that examination.’ (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Lynn v. State, 300 Ga.App. 170, 173(2), 684 S.E.2d 325 (2009).” Jones v. State, 318 Ga.App. 342, 733 S.E.2d 400 (October 19, 2012). Convictions for rape, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment, and escape affirmed; no improper bolstering in prosecutor’s questioning of victim. “Jones … asserts that the prosecutor bolstered the victim's credibility when, in redirect examination of the victim, the prosecutor asked her if she was telling the truth each time she recounted the rape incident and why she did not immediately call the police to report the incident. The prosecutor's questions, however, came after defense counsel attempted to impeach the victim's credibility. ‘Although a party normally may not bolster the veracity of an un-impeached witness, the State may rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been attacked.’ (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Robinson v. State, 275 Ga.App. 537, 538(1) (621 S.E.2d 770) (2005); see also Hall v. State, 255 Ga.App. 631, 632(1) (566 S.E.2d 374) (2002).” Gaston v. State, 317 Ga.App. 645, 731 S.E.2d 79 (August 7, 2012). Child molestation and related convictions reversed; trial court improperly allowed State to bolster victim’s credibility by repeatedly asking her father if he believed her.