☢ test - Í

King v. State, 273 Ga. 258, 539 S.E.2d 783 (November 30, 2000). “The trial court did not err by denying King’s pretrial motion seeking authorization to make an unsworn statement or, alternatively, to testify subject to specially-limited cross- examination at trial. Jenkins [v. State, 269 Ga. 282, 294(22), 498 S.E.2d 502 (1998)]; OCGA § 24-9-20(b).” Accord, Stinski v. State , 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854 (March 1, 2010) (defendant not entitled to make unsworn statement at penalty phase in capital murder trial). Roman v. State, 245 Ga.App. 225, 537 S.E.2d 684 (July 18, 2000). Armed robbery convictions affirmed; trial court properly allowed prosecutor to cross defendant on his criminal history after defendant brought up the subject on direct. “At the end of his direct examination, Roman's counsel asked Roman if there was anything he would like to convey to the jury about his case. With regard to his identification by the victims, Roman responded, ‘I don't know why they picked me because, I guess because I been in trouble before; and which I have. I don't deny that. But I'm not the person.’ Then, on cross-examination, the State asked Roman to explain this statement and asked him about his past criminal record. ‘Assuming [Roman] did not, merely by volunteering that he had been [in trouble before], put his character “in issue” within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20(b) so as to permit rebuttal by the State, he nevertheless raised an issue which may be fully explored by the State on cross-examination....’ Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga.App. 354, 355, 450 S.E.2d 846 (1994).” H. EXPERTS See also PROCEDURE – EXPERTS, MOTION FOR FUNDS TO HIRE, above, and subheading OPINION TESTIMONY, below 1. BASIS FOR OPINION – FACTS IN EVIDENCE See also subheading HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS, below Muthu v. State, A16A0293, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 1635091 (April 26, 2016). DUI and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly prohibited defense expert from testifying about how a certain medical condition could affect an Intoxilyzer test, absent any evidence that the defendant in fact suffered from that condition. Humphrey v. Riley, 291 Ga. 534, 731 S.E.2d 740 (September 10, 2012). Habeas court erred in reversing defendant’s murder and arson convictions based on ineffective assistance; trial court properly excluded defendant’s proffered expert testimony on police interrogation tactics and false confession theory, especially without some evidence that defendant’s statement was, in fact, false. “[T]he trial court did not err by further noting that such testimony would be especially unsuitable where it would amount to nothing more than speculation in a vacuum about what allegedly false statements Riley might have made. Contrary to Riley's argument, this evidentiary ruling made outside the presence of the jury, essentially on the grounds of relevance, lack of probative value, and undue prejudice, did not amount to a penalty on Riley's decision to remain silent at trial. See United States v. Libby, 475 F.Supp.2d 73, 92–95(II)(C)(2) (D.D.C., 2007) (‘The defendant was wrong, however, to suggest that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Court from excluding evidence that is not otherwise relevant unless and until the defendant lays an adequate foundation for its admissibility, even if that foundation can only be laid through his own testimony.’).” Lewis v. State, 304 Ga.App. 831, 698 S.E.2d 365 (July 7, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter and child cruelty affirmed; medical examiner’s testimony, based in part on his own observations during autopsy and in part on hospital records, was properly admitted over hearsay objection. Shields v. State, 285 Ga. 372, 677 S.E.2d 100 (May 4, 2009). “[C]ontrary to Shield's contention, the pathologist's testimony about the autopsy findings and his opinion regarding the cause of the victim's death constituted direct, not circumstantial, evidence. Kirk v. State, 289 Ga.App. 125, 126 (656 S.E.2d 251) (2008); see also Jones v. State, 243 Ga. 584, 585(1) (255 S.E.2d 702) (1979).” Wright v. State, 286 Ga. 428, 677 S.E.2d 82 (April 28, 2009). Medical examiner’s testimony about cause of victim’s death was properly admitted in evidence, based in part on defendant’s statements. “[I]n attempting to determine the cause of death, a medical examiner may consider the circumstances surrounding the death; indeed, such consideration may be necessary based upon the condition of the remains, as in this case. See Leach v. State, 259 Ga. 33, 34, 376 S.E.2d 667 (1989), see also Bethea v. State, 251 Ga. 328, 331, 304 S.E.2d 713 (1983).” Kirkland v. State, 292 Ga.App. 73, 663 S.E.2d 408 (June 18, 2008). Trial court properly prohibited defense expert from testifying that defendant “was unable to distinguish right from wrong [at the time of the alleged crimes] because he was under the influence of the drug GHB,” where the record contained “no evidence that Kirkland was under the influence of