☢ test - Í

347 U.S. 62 (74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503) (1954). See also, Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 12(10) (222 S.E.2d 308) (1976) (possibly unlawfully-obtained letter which defendant wrote to his wife in his own hand was admissible to impeach his inconsistent trial testimony).” 9. IMMIGRATION STATUS Pareja v. State, 295 Ga.App. 871, 673 S.E.2d 343 (February 10, 2009). No ineffective assistance where trial counsel didn’t try to impeach molestation victim’s mother with her illegal immigrant status. “Because [mother] Chamorro's trial testimony was entirely consistent with her statements to [doctor] and the authorities, ‘there was no logical reason to believe that her illegal alien status, known only later to police, motivated or shaded her trial testimony against [Pareja]. Indeed, her illegal alien status would have been a motive for her not to report the crime [against her daughter] in the first place so that she could avoid all contact with law enforcement personnel, who could discover her illegal status and seek to have her deported. The fact that she reported the crime, even though she knew contact with police might lead to her deportation, lends credence to her outcry. [Pareja's] counsel wisely avoided this argument by not referencing [Chamorro's] illegal status.’ (Emphasis in original.) Bravo v. State, 269 Ga.App. 242, 245(1)(b) (603 S.E.2d 669) (2004).” Thus overcoming defendant’s argument “that cross-examination regarding her status as an illegal alien would have shown that she was ‘living in constant violation of the law,’ that she was ‘ likely committing numerous other crimes,’ and that, ‘as an illegal alien, Chamorro [had] a compelling motive to cooperate with governmental authorities.’” Affirmed on another issue, 286 Ga. 117, 686 S.E.2d 232 (November 2, 2009). 10. JUVENILE RECORD See OCGA § 24-9-84.1(d) Harris v. State, 296 Ga.App. 465, 675 S.E.2d 236 (March 5, 2009). “[W]hen a defendant presents witnesses as to his good character, the State is entitled to cross-examine as to his juvenile record to impeach such testimony. Redman v. State, 281 Ga.App. 605, 606(2) (636 S.E.2d 680) (2006); Williams v. State, 171 Ga.App. 927, 928(2) (321 S.E.2d 423) (1984). Nevertheless, he notes that in order to utilize such evidence, the State ‘is required to demonstrate that the questions were asked in good faith, and based on reliable information that can be supported by admissible evidence.’ (Citation omitted and emphasis supplied.) Christenson v. State, 261 Ga. 80, 90-91(8)(c) (402 S.E.2d 41) (1991).” 11. OWN WITNESS See new OCGA § 24-6-607 Johnson v. State, 279 Ga.App. 489, 631 S.E.2d 720 (May 19, 2006). “Johnson argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to ask leading questions of Simmons and in allowing the taped interview into evidence, because Simmons was the State’s own witness, and ‘[t]he State did not establish surprise, entrapment[,] or inconsistent statements.’ Johnson further alleges that ‘[t]he State knew of the unfavorable testimony [of] this witness and ... intended and planned the impeachment prior to the witness’s testimony at trial.’ Johnson misunderstands the rule set forth in OCGA § 24-9-81. ‘The impeaching party need not establish actual entrapment or surprise. Rather, the party has been ‘entrapped’ when at the time of the questioning it has knowledge of a prior statement by one of its witnesses which contradicts testimony that witness has just given.’ (Citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted.) Black v. State, 261 Ga.App. 263, 268(4) (582 S.E.2d 213) (2003).” Smith v. State, 261 Ga.App. 871, 583 S.E.2d 914 (June 24, 2003). “‘A party may not impeach a witness voluntarily called by him, except where he can show to the court that he has been entrapped by said witness by a previous contradictory statement.’ Paradise v. State, 212 Ga.App. 166, 169(3) (441 S.E.2d 497) (1994). The Supreme Court of Georgia has removed the requirements of surprise and prejudice from the element of entrapment in OCGA § 24-9- 81, only requiring as a ‘threshold matter a showing that the witness made a statement inconsistent with the witness’s testimony at trial.’ Jones v. State, 270 Ga. 25, 27(3) (505 S.E.2d 749) (1998).” Accord, Cummings v. State , 280 Ga. 831, 632 S.E.2d 152 (July 6, 2006) (testimony that witness “does not recall” certain details” is sufficiently “inconsistent” to allow its use for impeachment); Hurt v. State , 298 Ga. 51, 779 S.E.2d 313 (November 2, 2015) (same as Cummings ). Fincher v. State, 276 Ga. 480, 578 S.E.2d 102 (February 24, 2003). “The State called a witness to testify regarding statements allegedly made to the witness by Fincher while they were both in jail. When the witness refused to answer questions regarding what Fincher had said to him regarding his mother's death, the State was permitted over Fincher’s objections to ask questions containing their own answers. ‘[T]he undeniable effect of this prosecutorial procedure was to