☢ test - Í

its use for impeachment. Duckworth v. State, 268 Ga. 566(1) (492 S.E.2d 201) (1997). ” Accord, Parker (January 18, 2007), above; Hopkins v. State , 283 Ga.App. 654, 642 S.E.2d 356 (February 21, 2007); Sims v. State , 317 Ga.App. 420, 731 S.E.2d 105 (August 14, 2012). Cummings v. State, 280 Ga. 831, 632 S.E.2d 152 (July 6, 2006). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is not limited to situations where “the witness denies making the prior statement,” but was properly allowed here, where witness claims he lied in his prior statement to police. Accord, Johnson v. State , 289 Ga. 106, 709 S.E.2d 768 (April 18, 2011); Lopez v. State , 319 Ga.App. 486, 735 S.E.2d 812 (December 21, 2012); Moses v. State , 328 Ga.App. 625, 760 S.E.2d 217 (July 15, 2014); Wright v. State , 296 Ga. 276, 766 S.E.2d 439 (November 24, 2014); Williams v. State , 335 Ga.App. 841, 783 S.E.2d 362 (February 26, 2016). Robinson v. State, 271 Ga.App. 584, 610 S.E.2d 194 (February 10, 2005). Aggravated assault conviction affirmed. Witnesses’ prior statements could be used for impeachment where witnesses both testified they were drunk on the night in question, gave responsive answers to some questions, but denied giving statements to officers. Distinguished from Hill v. State , 250 Ga.App. 897, 553 S.E.2d 289 (2001), where “the witness did not testify to any relevant facts that could have been inconsistent with a prior statement. He merely testified that … he did not remember anything about the night in issue or what he had told the police. Id. at 901, 553 S.E.2d 289. When ‘a witness merely states that he does not remember, he cannot be impeached by the showing of former statements with respect to the facts which he claims not to remember. This is true regardless of whether the witness’[s] failure to “remember” is real or contrived.’ (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Id. at 902(1), 553 S.E.2d 289.” Lemons v. State, 270 Ga.App. 743, 608 S.E.2d 15 (November 10, 2004). Trial court did not err in limiting defendant’s cross-examination of victim on victim’s immigration status where he first said he was a U.S. citizen, then stated outside the presence of the jury that he had misunderstood the question, and was not in fact a citizen. “It is ‘well-settled law that a witness can not be impeached by proof of contradictory statements previously made by him unless such statements are as to matters relevant to his testimony and to the case.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.)” quoting Cooper v. State, 66 Ga.App. 594, 595, 18 S.E.2d 644 (1942). Little v. State, 278 Ga. 425, 603 S.E.2d 252 (September 27, 2004). “Contrary to Little’s contention, the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence the prior inconsistent statements of [State’s witness]. The statements were admissible to impeach [witness] and as substantive evidence, [cits.] and it was not necessary for the State to show surprise or entrapment before introducing the prior inconsistent statement. [Cits.]” Robinson v. State, 278 Ga. 31, 597 S.E.2d 386 (June 7, 2004). “‘“[A] prior inconsistent statement of a witness who takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination is admissible as substantive evidence.” [Cits.].’ Gordon v. State, 273 Ga. 373, 376(b), 541 S.E.2d 376 (2001).” State was not required to first use it to impeach the witness, reading it to her or presenting it to her while on the stand. Mayberry v. State, 267 Ga.App. 620, 600 S.E.2d 703 (May 27, 2004). “Mayberry’s statement was properly admitted for impeachment purposes. [Cit.] While the State may not use a statement obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda rights during its case in chief, that statement may be used on rebuttal to impeach the defendant. [Cit.] Mayberry’s statements to [officer] were not introduced during the State’s case-in-chief; rather, the State offered the statement to impeach Mayberry’s testimony. Accordingly, Mayberry’s statements were admissible, even if obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.” Armour v. State, 265 Ga.App. 569, 594 S.E.2d 765 (February 12, 2004). Defendant wanted to use officer’s report to impeach witnesses. “The officer’s report did not contain prior inconsistent statements inasmuch as the short summaries written by the officer were not inconsistent with the witnesses’ trial testimony;” fact that witnesses testified to more detailed information at trial notwithstanding. “The witnesses’ testimony did not contradict the officer’s summary of their earlier statements. Instead, the testimony was simply more detailed than the summary compiled by the officer. Because the statements were not inconsistent, the report was not admissible as containing prior inconsistent statements. [cit.]” Trial court did not err in disallowing use of report for impeachment purposes. Robinson v. State, 265 Ga.App. 481, 594 S.E.2d 696 (February 9, 2004). “[I]n order to lay the foundation for impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, the cross-examiner must show the written contradictory statement to the