☢ test - Í

Zamudio v. State, 332 Ga.App. 37, 771 S.E.2d 733 (April 13, 2015). Convictions for gang activity and related offenses affirmed; no best evidence rule violation under pre-2013 Evidence Code. Officer’s testimony about photos he had seen on MySpace was admissible without admission of the photos themselves, as “[p]hotographs were not considered writings under former OCGA § 24–5–4, and were therefore not subject to the best evidence rule. See Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 5, 8(2) (222 S.E.2d 357) (1976) (holding that the best evidence rule did not apply to a photograph of a police lineup).” Castaneira v. State, 321 Ga.App. 418, 740 S.E.2d 400 (March 26, 2013). Conviction for criminal attempt to commit child molestation, and related offenses, affirmed; no best evidence rule violation where officer testifie that exhibit was a photocopy of original chat room transcript which was placed in case file. “The best evidence rule does not prohibit the introduction of photocopies, so long as the originals are ‘satisfactorily accounted for.’ OCGA § 24-5-4 (a). Here, the original transcripts were accounted for as having been placed in the case file, and there is no evidence that the photocopied transcripts were not exact duplicates of the originals. ‘Under these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photocopies.’ (Citation omitted.) Chastain v. State , 231 Ga.App. 225, 226 (2) (498 S.E.2d 792) (1998).” Thomas v. State, 319 Ga.App. 690, 738 S.E.2d 149 (February 5, 2013). Physical precedent only. First degree forgery conviction affirmed; trial court properly admitted photocopy of front of check despite defendant’s best evidence rule objection. Contrary to defendant’s argument, court could find evidence of bank’s effort to locate original check was adequate. “Thomas argues that to show sufficient diligence, the State was required to call as a witness the branch manager, who was the last person known to have custody of the original check, relying on language in Mulkey [ v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 307, 270 S.E.2d 816 (1980)]. The court in Mulkey reversed an arson conviction, holding that the trial court should have allowed the defendant to testify about a letter he had received from someone who implicated himself in the crime, even though he could not locate the letter, because he had showed diligence in attempting to do so. Id. While the court also said that the last person who had custody of the letter had to make the required showing of ‘non- existence or inaccessibility or loss’ of the document, this language does not limit the category of evidence that will prove diligence, but only addresses one kind of evidence that will do so. Id.” Here, two other bank employees testified to their efforts to locate the original. “Whether the party seeking to introduce secondary evidence has been sufficiently diligent in looking for the primary evidence and whether that evidence is inaccessible ‘is a determination within the discretion of the trial judge, ... and his decision will not be overturned unless that discretion is abused.’ Id., Mulkey, 155 Ga.App. at 306, 270 S.E.2d 816; Meeker v. State, 249 Ga. 780, 783(5), 294 S.E.2d 479 (1982).” Mickens v. State, 318 Ga.App. 601, 734 S.E.2d 438 (November 16, 2012). Aggravated assault and rape convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to raise best evidence objection to picture of rape test kit, as the kit wasn’t a “writing” subject to that rule. Norris v. State, 289 Ga. 154, 709 S.E.2d 792 (April 26, 2011). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in sustaining best evidence objection to testimony by defendant’s mother about missing letter, allegedly from co-defendant Armour. “Because Norris' mother was not so familiar with Armour's handwriting that she would recognize it, and because there was not any other evidence that the particular letter which she described was written by Armour, it was not properly authenticated and, therefore, testimony regarding it was inadmissible under the best evidence rule. See Clark v. State, [271 Ga. 6, 515 S.E.2d 155 (1999)]. Compare Quick v. State, [256 Ga. 780, 353 S.E.2d 497 (1987)]; Summerour v. State, 211 Ga.App. 65, 66(1), 438 S.E.2d 176 (1993).” Baptiste v. State, 288 Ga. 653, 706 S.E.2d 442 (February 28, 2011). Murder conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to search warrant, as contents of lost supporting affidavit were properly proven by parole evidence. Best evidence rule, codified in OCGA § 24-5-4(a), was satisfied by evidence that the original affidavit was, in fact, lost. “The statute ‘makes the best evidence rule inapplicable whenever the absence of the original writing is “satisfactorily accounted for.” OCGA § 24-5-21 provides that “[i]f a paper shall have been lost or destroyed, proof of the fact to the court shall admit secondary evidence. The question of diligence is one for the sound discretion of the court.” This rule applies both to secondary documentary evidence and to parol testimony.’ McGee v. State, 260 Ga. 178(3b) (391 S.E.2d 400) (1990). In light of the officer's testimony concerning the loss of the sealed packet containing the original search warrants and affidavits, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted secondary evidence, i.e., the testimony of the investigator as to the contents of the missing affidavits. Summerour v. State, 211 Ga.App. 65(1) (438 S.E.2d 176) (1993) (admission of secondary parol evidence concerning the contents of a missing document was not an abuse of discretion).” Accord, Prince v. State , 295 Ga. 788, 764 S.E.2d 362 (October 6, 2014) (contents of missing affidavit were properly proven: “At the motion for new trial hearing in this case, Investigator Peebles