☢ test - Í

Sapp v. State, 263 Ga.App. 122, 587 S.E.2d 267 (September 10, 2003). Defendant could not impeach witness with evidence of unrelated criminal charges which had been dead-docketed, notwithstanding that might still technically be “pending,” absent “evidence of any deal or potential deal between [witness] and the State in exchange for his testimony against Sapp.” Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578, 581 S.E.2d 23 (May 19, 2003). Trial court properly refused to admit evidence of specific charges pending against witness. “[A] witness cannot be impeached by instances of specific misconduct unless that misconduct has resulted in the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.” But counsel could cross-examine on fact that (unspecified) charges were pending and whether she had cut any deals with the state. “Under these circumstances we find that the trial court’s ruling that barred [defendant] from inquiring into the nature of the pending charges did not impair the defense from providing the jury with ‘sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal’ of [witness’s] motives and biases.” Accord , Jones v. State , 265 Ga.App. 743, 595 S.E.2d 595 (February 20, 2004); see Fields (May 10, 2007), above. Nealy v. State, 239 Ga.App. 651, 522 S.E.2d 34 (August 18, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for armed robbery reversed; trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of State’s witness regarding “charges pending against the witness.” “[Co- defendant] Grant proffered evidence that, at the time of Matthews' testimony, Matthews had charges pending against him for theft by shoplifting, theft by receiving, possession of marijuana, simple battery, and giving false information to the police. He was also on probation for theft by receiving. Pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to cross-examine a witness against him concerning criminal charges brought by the State which are pending against the witness. Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257, 259-260, 290 S.E.2d 911 (1982). By means of such cross-examination, the defendant is entitled to attack the credibility of the witness by showing that the pending charges reveal a possible bias, prejudice, or ulterior motive on the part of the witness to give untruthful or shaded testimony in an effort to please the State. Id. Whether the witness is testifying pursuant to a deal with the State relating to the pending charges is not crucial to the right to conduct such cross-examination. Id. Rather, the defendant is entitled to show by cross-examination that the witness may be shading his testimony in an effort to curry favor from the State. Id. ‘A desire to cooperate may be formed beneath the conscious level, in a manner not apparent even to the witness, but such a subtle desire to assist the state nevertheless may cloud perception.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 260, 290 S.E.2d 911.” Bean v. State, 239 Ga.App. 106, 521 S.E.2d 19 (June 30, 1999). 1. Trial court properly prohibited defendant from impeaching victim with cross-examination about his pending juvenile court charges while ruling “that he could ask the victim if the state had promised him anything in exchange for his testimony. Thereafter, the court allowed Bean to elicit testimony from the victim that he had gone to Bean's house to avoid going to a juvenile court probation revocation hearing. Bean also was permitted to ask the victim if the police, while questioning him in a youth detention facility, promised him leniency, immunity or any other help in exchange for his testimony against Bean. Contrary to Bean's contentions, the court correctly ruled that the victim's juvenile delinquency record could not be used to impeach him. See Smith v. State, 270 Ga. 240, 244(5), 510 S.E.2d 1 (1998); McBee v. State, 210 Ga.App. 182(1), 435 S.E.2d 469 (1993).” 2. Trial court erred in preventing questioning of similar transaction witness on pending theft charge “and rejected Bean's assertion that he wanted to explore the witness' motive to testify on behalf of the state. ‘A criminal defendant's right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine a key State witness concerning pending criminal charges against the witness. In addition to the general right to impeach the witness by proof of prior criminal convictions, the defendant is entitled to make a more particular attack on the witness' credibility by means of cross-examination directed toward revealing possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives of the witness.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hurston v. State, 206 Ga.App. 570, 573(3), 426 S.E.2d 196 (1992) (physical precedent).” Harmless error, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Boxer X v. State, 237 Ga.App. 526, 515 S.E.2d 668 (April 7, 1999). “[ T]estimony showing a witness has been arrested is not a proper method of impeachment. Hollis v. State, 225 Ga.App. 370, 371(2), 484 S.E.2d 54 (1997).” 13. PLEADINGS/MOTIONS Carter v. State, 296 Ga.App. 598, 675 S.E.2d 320 (March 12, 2009). Trial court properly ruled that co- defendant/State’s witness couldn’t be impeached with statements made in motion to suppress filed by her attorney, absent a showing that the statements were specifically authorized by the witness. Motion alleged that witness and Carter didn’t live together at time of search of her residence, but witness testified at trial that Carter did live there. Based on 134 Baker Street, Inc. v. State, 172 Ga.App. 738, 741(5) (324 S.E.2d 575) (1984): “‘our Supreme court has held that,