☢ test - Í

(February 5, 2007); Jennings v. State , 292 Ga.App. 149, 664 S.E.2d 248 (June 23, 2008); Sheppard v. State , 294 Ga.App. 270, 669 S.E.2d 152 (September 26, 2008) ( Citing Estes ); Treadwell v. State , 285 Ga. 736, 684 S.E.2d 244 (September 28, 2009); Higginbotham v. State , 287 Ga. 187, 695 S.E.2d 210 (May 17, 2010); Francois v. State , 309 Ga.App. 692, 711 S.E.2d 45 (May 2, 2011); Singleton v. State , 326 Ga.App. 609, 757 S.E.2d 211 (March 27, 2014); Grissom v. State , 296 Ga. 406, 768 S.E.2d 494 (January 20, 2015); Durham v. State , 296 Ga. 376, 768 S.E.2d 512 (January 20, 2015); Devaughn v. State , 296 Ga. 475, 769 S.E.2d 70 (February 2, 2015). Brawner v. State, 278 Ga. 316, 602 S.E.2d 612 (September 13, 2004). Malice murder and firearms convictions affirmed. Crawford was violated where trial court allowed detective to read to the jury [missing witness’s] statement, given to police “several days after the shooting.” “We decline to endorse the State’s suggestion that the holding in Crawford v. Washington be limited to situations wherein the hearsay declarant is a suspect since the Sixth Amendment does not so limit the right of confrontation and the U.S. Supreme Court did not so limit its holding.” Accord, Jenkins v. State , 278 Ga. 598, 604 S.E.2d 789 (November 8, 2004). Distinguished, Richard (November 6, 2006), above (evidence in Richard was cumulative, despite impeachment of the other witness, so error there was harmless, unlike the error in Brawner); Stovall v. State , 287 Ga. 415, 696 S.E.2d 633 (June 28, 2010) (admission of custodial statement harmless error, unlike Brawner : “In Brawner, the witnesses whose testimony was corroborated by the hearsay statement were impeached by proof of their contradictory statements, and the jury was instructed that the testimony of a witness the jury found to have been successfully impeached by proof of contradictory statements could be disregarded unless it was corroborated by other witnesses. Id., at 319-320. In [ Stovall ], the witnesses whose testimony was corroborated by the hearsay were not impeached by proof of contradictory statements, but by proof of the receipt of testimonial immunity and the receipt of no additional term of incarceration for convictions.”). Starr v. State, 269 Ga.App. 466, 604 S.E.2d 297 (September 3, 2004). No Crawford violation of Confrontation Clause rights in admitting statement of child molesting victim, where victim is present and available to testify, although she doesn’t actually take the stand. Accord, Howell v. State , 278 Ga.App. 634, 629 S.E.2d 398 (February 8, 2006) (Physical precedent only). Starr and Howell overruled on this point, Hatley v. State , 290 Ga. 480, 722 S.E.2d 67 (February 6, 2012). Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 597 S.E.2d 332 (May 24, 2004). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed. Crawford doesn’t apply where the defendant is the proponent of the evidence. See footnote 12. Accord, Davis v. State , 308 Ga.App. 7, 706 S.E.2d 710 (February 17, 2011). Bell v. State, 278 Ga. 69, 597 S.E.2d 350 (May 24, 2004). Murder conviction affirmed. Victim’s statements to friends about prior difficulties were admissible under necessity exception, but her statements to police “during the course of the officers’ investigations of complaints made by the victim against Mr. Bell” violated Confrontation Clause under Crawford . Harmless error analysis applied, however. Accord, Watson v. State , 278 Ga. 763, 604 S.E.2d 804 (November 8, 2004) (admission of victim’s statements to police violated Crawford , but harmless error); Gay v. State , 279 Ga. 180, 611 S.E.2d 31 (March 28, 2005) (harmless error analysis of Crawford violation); Copprue v. State , 279 Ga. 771, 621 S.E.2d 457 (October 24, 2005) (harmless error where cumulative); Jackson v. State , 291 Ga. 22, 727 S.E.2d 106 (April 24, 2012) (harmless error where cumulative); Singleton v. State , 326 Ga.App. 609, 757 S.E.2d 211 (March 27, 2014) (harmless where cumulative); Harris v. State , 331 Ga.App. 32, 769 S.E.2d 749 (March 6, 2015) (harmless where cumulative). Demons v. State, 277 Ga. 724, 595 S.E.2d 76 (March 29, 2004). Murder victim’s statements to a co-worker and to a friend about his relationship with defendant, and defendant’s prior acts of violence towards victim, were not “testimonial” statements the admission of which is controlled by the Confrontation Clause and Crawford , but were still admissible under the necessity exception and res gestae/excited utterance. Accord, Brown v. State , 288 Ga. 364, 703 S.E.2d 609 (November 1, 2010); Jackson v. State , 288 Ga. 213, 702 S.E.2d 201 (November 8, 2010) (victim’s statements to girlfriend and father not testimonial); Grissom v. State , 296 Ga. 406, 768 S.E.2d 494 (January 20, 2015) (witness’s statements to a friend weren’t testimonial). Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676, 594 S.E.2d 350 (March 22, 2004). Malice murder conviction affirmed. Officer’s testimony “about what [victim] told him shortly after Moody shot into the bedroom in which she was sleeping,” a prior difficulty between defendant and murder victim, violated Crawford. Concludes, without any detailed analysis, that the term “testimonial” as used in Crawford “certainly applies to statements made in a police interrogation, and it appears that the term encompasses the type of field investigation of witnesses at issue here.” Harmless error, however. Harmess error