☢ test - Í

Wilson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 39, 622 S.E.2d 411 (October 20, 2005). Trial court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of a check where “the state never accounted for the original check when defense counsel objected on the ground that the admission of the original was the best evidence. … However, the error was harmless because the state’s witnesses provided direct testimony regarding details about the check and specifically testified regarding Wilson’s use of [victim’s] driver’s license. Thus, the check itself was of little or no significance in determining Wilson’s guilt or innocence.” Parham v. State, 275 Ga.App. 528, 621 S.E.2d 532 (September 16, 2005). Witness at trial was allowed to testify that her computer screen showed that certain transactions [involving theft by defendant] had occurred. Held, trial court properly allowed this testimony over objection based on best evidence rule. “The best evidence rule applies to writings only. Perkins v. State, 260 Ga. 292, 295(7) (392 S.E.2d 872) (1990). We are unconvinced that a computer screen constitutes a ‘writing’ as that term is intended by the rule. Id. However, assuming arguendo that it does, we hold that the best evidence rule would not have prohibited the clerk’s oral testimony. ‘The issue here is the existence of a fact – whether [Parham used the clerk’s computer to back out taxes] – and not the contents or terms of the writing.’ Bellamy [ v. State , 243 Ga.App. 575, 580(3) (530 S.E.2d 243) (2000)]. Thus, the trial court properly admitted the evidence and the jury was entitled to consider it along with the other evidence in the case.” Hernandez v. State, 274 Ga.App. 390, 617 S.E.2d 630 (July 13, 2005). “Hernandez’s contention that the trial court erred by allowing testimony describing the stick [used by defendant to strike victim] without the stick being introduced into evidence is without merit. ‘The best evidence rule applies only in the context of a writing. [Cit.]’ Rogers v. State, 224 Ga.App. 359, 360 (480 S.E.2d 368) (1997).” Jowers v. State, 245 Ga.App. 773, 538 S.E.2d 853 (September 5, 2000). Child molestation conviction affirmed; contrary to defendant’s argument, best evidence rule didn’t require admission of pornographic materials he showed victims, rather than their testimony. “This contention was made and rejected in King v. State, 209 Ga.App. 529, 530(2)(a), 433 S.E.2d 722 (1993).” Bellamy v. State, 242 Ga.App. 575, 530 S.E.2d 243 (February 29, 2000). Methamphetamine trafficking and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly ruled that chemist could testify to results of testing she conducted to determine nature of substance without violating best evidence rule. “The issue here is the existence of a fact—whether the substance tested was methamphetamine—and not the contents or terms of the writing. Thus, the issue may be proved both by oral and written evidence,” citing State v. Hortman, 185 Ga.App. 756, 757(1), 365 S.E.2d 887 (1988). Defendants here contended that machine printout was best evidence of test results. Bacon v. State, 239 Ga.App. 874, 521 S.E.2d 695 (August 18, 1999). Trial court erred, but harmless, in refusing to admit photocopy of document (here, impeaching statement of witness) where contents thereof were not disputed, citing King v. State, 209 Ga.App. 529, 530(2)(a), 433 S.E.2d 722 (1993). Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6, 515 S.E.2d 155 (April 12, 1999). Witnesses at defendant’s malice murder trial testified that they had seen a composition book at defendant’s home gang members and rules of the gang. The book was not admitted into evidence and its absence was not explained. Held, this testimony violated the best evidence rule. “The ‘best evidence’ rule, embodied in OCGA § 24-5-4, [fn] means that, when the contents of a writing are material, the original of the writing must be produced or its absence accounted for. Green, Ga. Law of Evidence (4 th ed.), § 100. Secondary evidence of the contents of a writing will be admissible ‘if an original writing is properly authenticated, its existence and admissibility shown, and its absence accounted for....’ Rumsey, Agnor’s Ga. Evid. (3 rd ed.), § 13-8. See also OCGA § 24-5-25. In the case at bar, the secondary evidence was admitted without the proponent establishing the existence, admissibility and authentication of the composition book, and without accounting for the absence of the original. Compare Summerour v. State, 211 Ga.App. 65(1), 438 S.E.2d 176 (1993). The secondary evidence offered, the testimony of the women, was hearsay (id.), and it was admitted without a determination that it fell within an exception to the rule prohibiting the use of hearsay.” Harmless error, however, in light of other admissible evidence of defendants’ gang membership and rules. K. BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822, 725 S.E.2d 260 (March 19, 2012). Interim review of capital murder prosecution; trial court properly denied defendant relief based on State’s destruction of blood evidence. Evidence was destroyed at crime lab pursuant to routine protocol for evidence stored more than one year, not knowing that order to preserve evidence was entered by trial court on same day. 1. Contrary to defendant’s argument, he hasn’t shown violation of OCGA § 17-5-56.