☢ test - Í

timidity and fear); Miles v. State, [201 Ga.App. 568, 569(5) (411 S.E.2d 566) (1991)].” Ivey v. State, 277 Ga. 875, 596 S.E.2d 612 (May 24, 2004). “A trial judge has broad discretion to allow the recall of a witness.” Mohamed v. State, 276 Ga. 706, 583 S.E.2d 9 (June 30, 2003). Trial court properly curtailed defendant’s cross- examination of officer about “the legal requirements for admissibility of the fruits of a search pursuant to Terry .” “[T]hat legal determination is the province of the court, had previously been addressed by the court, and was not an issue for the jury.” Rubi v. State, 258 Ga.App. 815, 575 S.E.2d 719 (December 11, 2002). As prosecution witness left stand and passed defense table, defendant whispered to him in Spanish, “You’ll pay for that.” Held, it was not error for the trial court to allow the state to recall the witness and repeat defendant’s threat. “A defendant cannot complain on appeal if the State followed up on issues he himself injected.” Threatening statements toward witnesses may indicate consciousness of guilt. See also Nguyen v. State , 273 Ga. 389 (3), 543 S.E.2d 5 (2001), Ballard v. State , 268 Ga. 895 (2), 494 S.E.2d 644 (1998). Accord, Bridges v. State , 279 Ga. 351, 613 S.E.2d 621 (May 23, 2005) (attempt to influence defendant admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt). Hall v. State, 255 Ga.App. 631, 566 S.E.2d 374 (June 4, 2002). Defense counsel elicited testimony from State’s witness, on cross-examination, which bolstered the child victim’s testimony. Defense counsel did not object to the answers as nonresponsive, but asked similar questions of other witnesses including a psychologist who had counseled the children, a Department of Family & Children Services (DFACS) investigator, and a foster parent. On appeal, Defendant objected to the responsive testimony that he elicited. Held, although admission of testimony on the credibility of a witness elicited by the State has been held to be a reversible error, Guest v. State , 201 Ga.App. 506, 508 (1991), because “[n]ormally, a party may not bolster the veracity of its own witness until the witness has been impeached by the adverse party, in this instance, the contested testimony was not elicited by the State from its own witnesses, but was drawn out by the defense counsel during cross-examination....” Campbell v. State , 248 Ga.App. 162, 164, 545 S.E.2d 6 (January 16, 2001) ( see above under Witnesses, Experts). Defendant cannot object to responsive testimony that he has elicited. This Court has previously held that “[c]ounsel for defendant introduced the opinion of this witness that she believed the children when they told her the defendant committed these acts. Asserted prejudice based upon induced error is impermissible.” Keri v. State , 179 Ga.App. 664, 667 (1986). Pye v. State, 274 Ga. 839, 561 S.E.2d 109 (March 11, 2002). Eyewitness called to testify by state. Prosecutor used a prior statement by the witness to refresh his recollection and to impeach his testimony. State also produced a certified copy of the witness’s conviction for forgery to impeach the implication in the witness’s testimony, when questioned by defense, that witness could not read or write. Held, the prior statement was sufficiently authenticated as the time, place, person, and circumstances of the statement were called to the witness’s attention and the statement was shown to the witness. Also, the conviction was properly used to rebut factually the implication arising from the witness’s testimony that he could not sign his name. Overstreet v. State, 250 Ga.App. 336, 551 S.E.2d 748 (July 2, 2001). No error in trial court’s admission of co-defendant’s statement made to the police in the hospital the day after the incident, finding that the police had obtained permission to speak with the co-defendant from the co-defendant’s doctor, who stated that co-defendant was lucid and would understand questions. Trial court properly found that co-defendant’s statements were freely and voluntarily given and that the co- defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights. CC. WAIVER Reynolds v. State, 267 Ga.App. 148, 598 S.E.2d 868 (April 21, 2004). “Reynolds claims that the trial court erred by failing adequately to ascertain whether he was knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to call witnesses. He points out that a trial court must inquire whether a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel or a defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea is made knowingly and intelligently [Cit.] and argues that the same standard should apply to a defendant’s right to call witnesses. … But decisions regarding which witnesses to call are the exclusive province of the attorney after consultation with the client. [Cit.] The trial court is not required to supervise this process.” DD. WITNESS LIST