☢ test - Í

testimony based on other doctor's findings was not hearsay because toxicologist reviewed the doctor's data and testing procedures to determine their accuracy); Watkins, 285 Ga. at 358(2) (same); Velazquez v. State, 282 Ga. 871, 875(3) (655 S.E.2d 806) (2008) (‘Even when an expert's testimony is based on hearsay, the expert's lack of personal knowledge does not mandate exclusion of the opinion but merely presents a jury question as to the weight which should be accorded the opinion.’).” Accord, Clark v. State , 296 Ga. 543, 769 S.E.2d 376 (February 16, 2015) (medical examiner properly allowed to state opinion on cause of death based on autopsy performed by another medical examiner). Mickens v. State, 318 Ga.App. 601, 734 S.E.2d 438 (November 16, 2012). Aggravated assault and rape convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to object to State’s expert’s testimony about reports prepared by others. “Mickens argues that his trial counsel should have objected on hearsay grounds to testimony from a GBI witness who testified as to her review of the forensic work done by outside laboratories. [fn] The witness explained her review of analyses (i) for the presence of seminal fluid and spermatizore and (ii) developing a DNA profile. She explained that based on her knowledge of the labs' testing procedures, the test were scientifically acceptable, and she had independently peer reviewed the data generated in the reports to reach her conclusions. Such expert testimony has been held to be admissible, so we discern no harm in trial counsel's failure to object here. See Rector v. State, 285 Ga. 714, 715(4), 681 S.E.2d 157 (2009); Watkins v. State, 285 Ga. 355, 358(2), 676 S.E.2d 196 (2009). Compare Neal v. Augusta–Richmond County Personnel Bd., 304 Ga.App. 115, 118(1), 695 S.E.2d 318 (2010) (finding testimony was hearsay because it was a mere conduit for results prepared by others; collecting cases in which expert peer review testimony was admissible).” Treadwell v. State, 285 Ga. 736, 684 S.E.2d 244 (September 28, 2009). In defendant’s murder prosecution, medical examiner was properly allowed “to testify that [victim] Sellers's death was caused by complications ‘following an assault.’” “The medical examiner performed an autopsy on Sellers's body and reviewed Sellers's medical records in conjunction with his assessment of the cause of death. When an expert personally observes data collected by another, the expert's opinion is not objectionable merely because it is based, in part, on the other's findings, and even when such testimony is based on hearsay, the lack of personal knowledge does not result in exclusion of the expert's opinion but merely presents a jury question as to the weight it is to be given. Velazquez v. State, 282 Ga. 871, 875(3) (655 S.E.2d 806) (2008). Moreover, in attempting to determine the cause of death, a medical examiner is authorized to consider the circumstances surrounding the death; in fact, such consideration may be a necessity because of the state of the remains. Wright v. State, 285 Ga. 428, 677 S.E.2d 82 (2009). In this case, the medical examiner's consideration of Sellers's medical history was plainly warranted as the interval between the precipitating assault and the resulting death would have permitted the initial physical signs of the assault to subside. Furthermore , the medical examiner's finding that Sellers's death was the result of complications from an assault did not invade the province of the jury. See Medlock v. State, 263 Ga. 246, 248-249(3) (430 S.E.2d 754) (1993). And, it was not error to refuse to redact the found cause of the victim's death from the death certificate.” Accord, Simmons v. State , 289 Ga. 773, 716 S.E.2d 165 (October 3, 2011) (doctor’s opinion on cause of death properly admitted though based in part on “medical records compiled by other doctors.”). Taylor v. State, 295 Ga.App. 689, 673 S.E.2d 7 (January 6, 2009). Trial court properly allowed medical examiner to testify to his opinion on cause of death based on autopsy report prepared by another medical examiner, admitted as a business record and redacted to remove preparer’s opinions and conclusions. Affirmed on another issue, Taylor v State , 286 Ga. 328, 687 S.E.2d 409 (November 2, 2009). Whatley v. Terry, 284 Ga. 555, 668 S.E.2d 651 (October 6, 2008). “Although an expert witness may rely on the statements of others in forming his or her expert opinions, those opinions should be given weight only to the extent that the statements upon which they rely are themselves found to have been proven reliable. Roebuck v. State, 277 Ga. 200, 202(1) (586 S.E.2d 651) (2003). An expert witness must not be permitted to serve merely as a conduit for hearsay.” Hight v. State, 293 Ga.App. 254, 666 S.E.2d 678 (July 10, 2008). “Hight complains that Officer Howard failed to give any explanation, basis, or reason for his conclusion that Hight possessed the cocaine found in his car for distribution, rather than personal use. However, ‘[w]hen a witness is qualified as an expert, it is not necessary that he state the facts on which his opinion is based. [Cit.]’ [ O'Donnell v. State, 200 Ga.App. 829 (409 S.E.2d 579) (1991)] Thus, Hight's enumeration of error on this point is without merit.” Dunn v. State, 292 Ga.App. 667, 665 S.E.2d 377 (July 10, 2008). No confrontation violation; Crawford doesn’t apply where lab supervisor testified to his own opinions and conclusions based on tests performed by lab technician who didn’t testify. “The report itself was not introduced into evidence. The only evidence offered at trial of the chemical