☢ test - Í

place before the jury, through the questions asked, the content of [the witness]’s statement to the police, and the clear implication that the defendant had made these incriminating statements to [the witness].’” Trial court erred in permitting this, but harmless error in this case. 12. PENDING CHARGES Smith v. State, 319 Ga.App. 164, 735 S.E.2d 153 (November 30, 2012). Homicide by vehicle and related convictions affirmed; failure to allow impeachment of State’s witness with pending charges was error, but harmless, given corroboration of witness’s testimony by other evidence and opportunity to impeach witness with his prior conviction for giving false information. Witness “stated unequivocally that he had no hope of benefitting [on his pending drug charges in Indiana] from providing testimony in this case.” Pate v. State, 315 Ga.App. 205, 726 S.E.2d 691 (March 27, 2012). Physical precedent only. Statutory rape and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly excluded impeachment of victim regarding juvenile court charges which were neither pending at the time of her outcry nor at the time of trial. Howard v. State, 286 Ga. 222, 686 S.E.2d 764 (November 23, 2009). At defendant’s murder trial, no error where defendant was allowed to cross-examine State’s witness about fact that he had pending charges of “the same murder, the same aggravated assault, and the same attempted armed robbery as Howard;” and that he was hoping to get those charges dismissed by testifying against Howard; but defendant was prohibited from questioning defendant about the potential sentence he faced. Based on Watkins (May 19, 2003), below. Distinguishing State v. Vogleson, 275 Ga. 637 (571 S.E.2d 752) (2002) (conviction reversed where defendant prohibited from cross-examining witness on deal with State). Accord, Haggard v. State , 302 Ga.App. 502, 690 S.E.2d 651 (January 26, 2010). Fields v. State, 285 Ga.App. 345, 646 S.E.2d 326 (May 10, 2007). Error (but harmless) to prohibit cross-examination of State’s witness about pending felony charges against that witness. Based on Watkins (May 19, 2003), below. Brittian v. State, 274 Ga.App. 863, 619 S.E.2d 376 (August 2, 2005). Brittian was convicted of forgery for giving officer victim McFadden’s driver’s license during traffic stop, and signing McFadden’s name to speeding citation. At trial, McFadden testified that she did not receive the ticket. Brittian sought to cross-examine McFadden about her driver’s history, claiming that her history of prior offenses would show that she had a motive to lie about receiving the ticket. Held, trial court did not err in preventing this cross-examination. “‘A criminal defendant has the right to cross-examine a witness concerning pending criminal charges against the witness for purposes of exposing a witness’ motivation in testifying, e.g. bias, partiality, or agreement between the government and the witness. At the same time, the extent of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Kennebrew v. State, 267 Ga. 400, 402-403(3) (480 S.E.2d 1) (1996). Further, the test established in Johnson v. State, 244 Ga.App. 128, 131-132(1) (534 S.E.2d 480) (2000), provides that the bias be specific to the case at bar, and not based on an old conviction or a dismissed charge, as they are not a basis of a motive to distort testimony. In this case, McFadden had no specific bias in the case at bar, and her history of past speeding tickets was irrelevant.” Wright v. State, 279 Ga. 498, 614 S.E.2d 56 (June 6, 2005). Defendant’s conviction reversed; trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to impeach witness with juvenile adjudications. “[A] defendant is entitled to cross- examine the State’s witnesses regarding whether they are currently on probation for a juvenile offense or have open or pending cases in juvenile court. [Cit.] … However, the substantive facts underlying an open juvenile case would not generally be admissible.” “[A] witness who is under commitment to the Department [of Juvenile Justice pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-70] is equally subject to the allegation that he is shading his testimony in favor of the State in order to obtain more favorable treatment,” and thus likewise subject to cross-examination on that basis. Based on Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) and Mangum v. State , 274 Ga. 573, 555 S.E.2d 451 (2001). Lemons v. State, 270 Ga.App. 743, 608 S.E.2d 15 (November 10, 2004). Suggests, without deciding, that cross- examination on illegal immigration status/deportation follows same rule as cross on pending criminal charges. Bosnak v. State, 263 Ga.App. 313, 587 S.E.2d 814 (September 22, 2003). Trial court properly excluded cross- examination of prosecution witness about potential sentence for pending charges, while allowing questions about “whether he was charged, whether he thought he was going to be prosecuted, and whether he gave his statement under any coercion.”