In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: F e b ru a ry 1 6, 2 01 5

S 1 4A1 6 8 5 . CLARK v . THE S T ATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Co n sta n c e Cla rk wa s c o n v ic te d of m a lic e m u rd e r a n d a fire a rm

o ffe n se a s a p a rty to th e sh o o tin g de a th of h e r h u sb a n d

, Willia m Eric Cla rk

. On

a p p e a l, sh e a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l wa s in su ffic ie n t to su p p ort

h e r c o n v ic tio n s a n d th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in a llo win g th e p ro se c u to r to o ffe r

u n swo rn te stim o n y du rin g th e S ta te ’s o p e n in g a rg um e n t, in a d m ittin g te stim o n y

b y a m e d ic a l e x a m in e r wh o d id n ot p e rfo rm th e v ic tim ’s a u t o p s y, a n d in

p e rm ittin g a witn e ss’s vid e o t a p e d s ta te m e n t to b e p la y e d fo r th e ju ry m u ltip le

tim e s in a lle g e d v io la tio n o f th e c o n tin u in g witn e ss ru le

. We a ffirm

. 1

1 The vi c t i m w a s killed on December 13, 2005. On May 29, 2009, after the police had

reinitiated the investig ation as a “cold case” in 2008, a F ulton County g rand jury indicted Appellant,

J e a n P i erre DeVaug hn, and Christopher Tumlin f or malice murder, two counts o f felony mu r d e r

,

ag g r avated assault w ith a de ad l y w e apon, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm

during the commission of a felony ; Appellant and DeVaug hn were a lso charg ed with conspiracy to

commit murder. Appellant was tried separately from Aug ust 8 to 16, 2011, and the jury found her

not g uilt y o f h i

j a c k i ng and felony murder based on hijacking b ut g uilty of the other charg es. The

trial c ourt sentenced Appella n t t o l i f e in prison for malice murder and a consecutive term of five

y ears for the firearm conviction. The remaining felony murder verdict was vacated by operation of

law, and the ag g ravated assault a nd conspiracy counts merg ed. Appellant filed a timely motion f or

new trial, which sh e a m ended w ith the assistance of new counsel on Aug ust 31, 2012. After a

hearing

, the trial court denied the motion on A pril 24, 2013. A ppellant f iled a t i m e l y notice of1

. (a ) V i ew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic ts, t h e

e v id e n c e a t tria l sh o we d th e fo llo win g

. Ap p e lla n t an d th e v ic tim we re m a rrie d

in 1 99 9 ; th e y liv e d in Be sse m e r, Ala b a m a

. In Ju ne 2 00 0, th e v ic tim o b ta in e d a

$ 1 0 0,0 0 0 life in su ra n c e p o lic y

. In Ju n e 2 00 5

, l e ss th an six m o n th s b e fo re h e

wa s kille d

, th e v ic tim o b ta in e d a n o th e r p o lic y in th e a m o un t of $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0

.

Ap p e lla n t wa s n a m e d a s th e p rim a ry b e n e fic ia ry o n b o th p o lic ie s. At so m e

p o in t d u rin g th e ir re la tio nsh ip

, Ap p e lla n t a n d th e v ic tim b e g an h a v in g fin a n c ia l

d iffic u ltie s, a n d th e y a rg ue d a b o ut wh e th e r Ap p e lla n t sh o uld sp e n d th e ir m o n e y

o n ille g a l dru g s. Th e c o u p le b o rro we d m o ne y f r o m t h e v ic tim ’s m o th e r, a n d

th e y e ve n tu a lly file d fo r b a n k ru p tc y

. In th e la te sp rin g o r e a rly su m m e r o f 2 0 0 5

,

Ap p e lla n t p u lle d a g u n o n th e v ic tim du rin g a h e a te d a rg u m e nt. Th a t fa ll, o n e

o f Ap p e lla n t’s frie n d s sa w h e r in a b a rb e r sh o p an d a sk e d h o w th e v ic tim wa s

d o in g

. Ap p e lla n t re p lie d

, “ F * * k Eric

. I n e e d to c o lle c t so m e in su ra n c e m o n e y

o n h is a ss.”

appeal, and the case was d ocketed in this C o u r t f o r t h e September 2014 term and submitted f or

decision on the briefs.

D eVaug hn was tried before Appellant and convicted on a ll charg es; this Court r e c e n t l y

affirmed h is convictions on appeal. See DeVaug hn v. State, Case No. S14A1722 (decided F eb. 2,

2015). Tumlin testified at Appellant’s trial u n d e r a g rant of use immunity ; the record does not

indicate h ow the charg es ag ainst him were resolved. The record does not indicate whether Khorey

B r anch, who was with DeVaug hn and Tumlin at the time of the crimes, was ever charg ed.

2Th e v ic tim wo rk e d a sid e jo b a s a b a rte n d er

, an d h e p la n n e d to d riv e to

Atla n tao n De c e m

b e r 1 3

, 20 05

, to b u y liq u o r a t a d isc o un te d ra te fo r a n e v e n t.

Ap p e lla n t c a lle d h e r c o u sin Je a n P ie rre De Va u g h n

, wh o liv e d in Atla n ta

, te llin g

h im th a t th e v ic tim wa s a n a b u siv e h u sb a n d a n d a s k i n g h im to k ill th e v ic tim

.

Ap p e lla n t th e n ga ve th e vic tim D e Va u g h n ’s c e ll p h o n e n u m

b e r a n d to ld th e

v ic tim th a t sh e h a d a

rra ng e d fo r h im to m e e t with D e Va u g h n

, wh o c ou ld h e lp

h im fin d th e disc o u n t liq u o r sto re

. Me a n w h ile

, D e V a u g hn c a lle d h is frie n d

Kh o re y Bra n c h to a sk if Bra nc h kn e w wh e re h e c o u ld b u y a gu n, a n d B r a n c h

c o n ta c te d Ch risto p h e r Tu m lin

, wh o a g re e d to se ll De Va u g h n a h a n d g un

. On th e

e v e n in g o f De c e m

b e r 1 3

, D e V a u g h n a n d Bra n c h we nt to Tu m lin ’s h o m e in

so u th we st Atla n ta

, wh e re Tu m lin s o l d D e V a u gh n a ha n d g u n fo r $ 1 2 5

.

De Va u g h n th e n d ro v e with Tu m lin a n d Bra n c h to a g a s sta tio n n e a r S ix F la g s,

wh e re th e y m e t u p with th e v ic tim a ro un d 9 :0 0 p .m

.

Un d e r th e im

p re ssio n th a t h e wa s be in g le d to th e liq u o r sto re

, th e v ic tim

th e n fo llo we d De Va

u g h n to Wa te rfo r d E d g e

, an u n fin ish e d su b div isio n ne a r

Co lle g e P a rk wh e re D e Va u g h n h a d p re vio u sly d e liv e re d c on stru c tio n m a te ria ls

fo r a jo b

. De Va u g h n a n d th e v ic tim p u lle d th e ir c ars in to th e driv e wa y o f a n

u n fin ish e d h o u se

, go t o u t, a n d b e g a n to ta lk wh ile Tu m lin a nd Bra n c h re m a in e d

3in De V a u g h n ’ s c a r. Du rin g wh a t a p p e a re d to b e a c a su a l c o n v e rsa tio n

,

De Va u g h n su d d e n l y p ulle d ou t h is g u n a n d sh ot th e v ic tim fo u r o r fiv e tim e s,

in c l u d i n g twic e in th e h e a d

, k illin g h im

. Tu m lin th e n ju m p e d o u t o f

De Va u g h n ’s c a r a n d g o t in t o th e v ic tim ’s c a r, a n d b o th c ars sp e d o u t o f th e

su b d iv isio n

. Tu m li n a

b a n d o n e d th e v ic tim ’s c a r a b o u t a m ile fro m h is h o m e

.

De Va u g h n d ro v e Bra n c h h o m e b e fo re re tu rn in g h o m e h im se lf.

Ab o u t two we e ks a fte r th e m u rd e r, Ap p e lla n t c a lle d th e d e te c tiv e a ssig n e d

to th e c a se

. S h e d id n o t se e m c o n c e rn e d with th e p ro g re ss o f th e in v e stig a tio n

,

in ste a d a sk in g wh y th e in su ra n c e c o m p a n y h a d no t p a id h e r th e d e a th b e n e fit o n

h e r h u sb a n d. De rric k He n ry

, wh o da te d Ap p e lla nt a fte r th e mu r d e r

, to ld

in v e stig a to rs th a t Ap p e lla n t h a d p a id h e r c o u sin P ie rre $5

, 0 0 0 to k ill th e v ic tim

.

At tria l, Tu m lin te stifie d th a t h e o v e rh e a rd De Va u gh n sa y “ h e k n e w t h i s la d y

th a t wa n te d h e r hu sb a nd k ille d ” in th e c ar o n th e wa y to th e ga s sta tio n wh e re

th e y m e t th e v ic tim

. An d Bra n c h te stifie d th a t o n th e c a r rid e h om e af te r th e

sh o o tin g

, De Va

u g hn sa id th a t h is c o u sin h a d wa nte d h e r h u sb a n d k ille d b e c a use

h e wa s b e in g a

b u siv e

. Ce ll p h o n e re c o rd s sh o we d fo u r c a lls b e twe e n De Va u g h n

a n d Ap p e lla n t o n th e nig h t th e v ic tim wa s k ille d

, two c a lls with in th e two h o u rs

b e fo re th e sh o o tin g a n d two c a lls a b o u t two h o u rs a fte rwa rd

.

4(b ) Co ntra ry to Ap pe lla n t’ s i n itia l a rg u m e nt, th e e v id e n c e

p re se nte d a t tria l a n d su m m a riz e d a b o v e wa s su ffic ie n t t o a

u th o riz e a ra tio n a l

ju ry to fin d Ap p e lla nt gu ilty be y o n d a re a so n a ble d o u b t a s a p a rty to th e c rim e s

fo r wh ic h sh e w a s c o n v ic t e d

. He r c o n v ic tio n s th e re fo re su rv iv e du e p ro c e ss

re v ie w un d e r th e fe d e ra l c o n stitu tio n

. S e e Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 4 43 U.S

. 3 0 7

,

3 1 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 56 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ). Se e a lso OCGA § 1 6 -2 -2 0 (d e fin in g

p a rtie s to a c rim e ); Ve g a v

. S ta te

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 3 2

, 33 (6 7 3 S E 2 d 2 2 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ ‘It

wa s fo r th e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s a n d to re so lv e a n y

c o n flic ts o r in c o n siste n c ie s in th e e v id e n c e .’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

(c ) Ap pe lla n t a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e e v id e n c e wa s in su ffic ie n t to

su p p o rt he r c o n v ic tio n s u n d e r Ge o rg ia sta tu to ry la w b e c a use th e e vid e n c e wa s

e n tire ly c irc u m sta ntia l a nd d id n o t e x c lu d e e v e ry re a so n a b le e x p la n a tio n e x c e p t

th a t o f he r g u ilt. Un de r fo rm e r OCGA § 2 4-4 -6 (§ 24 -1 4 -6 in th e ne w Ev id e n c e

Co d e ), to wa rra n t a c o n v ic tio n o n c irc u ms t a n t ia l e v id e n c e a lo n e

, th e p ro v e n

fa c ts m ust no t o n ly b e c o n siste n t with th e h y p o t h e s i s of g u ilt, b u t a lso m u st

e x c lu d e e v e ry re a so n a

b le th e o ry o th e r th a n th e g u ilt o f th e a c c u se d

.

Th e e vid e n c e a g a in st Ap p e lla n t, m o st p a rtic u la rly th e e v id e n c e f ro m

De rric k He n ry

, w a s n o t e ntire ly c irc u m sta n tia l, so h e r a rg u m e n t re sts o n a n

5in c o rre c t p re m ise

. 2 Mo re o v e r, th e c irc um sta n tia l e v id e n c e th e S ta te p re se n te d

wa s su ffic ie n t to su p p o rt Ap p e lla n t’s c o n v ic tio n s. As th is Co u rt h a s e x p la in e d

,

[w] h e th e r e v e ry re a so n a

b le h y p o th e sis e x c e p t th a t o f th e g u ilt o f th e

d e fe n da n t h a s b e e n e x c lu d e d is a q u e stio n fo r th e ju ry . Wh e re th e

ju ry d e te rm in e s th e e v id e n c e e x c lu d e d e v e ry re a so n a b le hy p o th e sis

sa v e th a t o f g u ilt, su c h a fin din g w i l l n o t b e distu rb e d u n le ss th e

v e rd ic t o f g u ilty is u n su p p orta b le a s a m a tte r o f la w.

Me rritt v . S ta te , 2 8 5 Ga . 7 7 8

, 7 7 9 (6 8 3 S E 2d 8 5 5 ) (2 00 9) (c ita tio n s o m itte d).

Th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se sh o we d th a t Ap p e lla n t a n d th e v ic tim we re in

fin a nc ia l d istre ss, th e ir re la tio n sh ip wa s stra in e d

, Ap p e lla n t p u lle d a g u n o n th e

v ic tim m o n th s b e fo re h is de a th

, a n d Ap p e lla n t sto o d to g a in $ 60 0 ,0 0 0 fro m th e

v ic tim ’s d e a th a s th e p rim a ry b e n e fic i a r y o f h is life in su ra n c e po lic ie s. In

a d d itio n

, sh o rtly b e fo r e t h e v ic tim ’s d e a th

, Ap p e lla n t to ld a frie n d th a t sh e

n e e d e d to c o lle c t i n su ra n c e m o n e y o n th e v ic tim

, a nd two we e ks a fte r th e

k illin g

, Ap p e lla n t c o n ta c te d th e p o lic e to a sk w h y sh e h a d n o t re c e iv e d th e

in su ra n c e m o n e y ra th e r th a n a sk in g a b o u t th e p ro g re ss o f th e in v e stig a tio n in to

2 Appellant asserts that the trial court struck Henry ’s t e s t i m o n y

, causing the hearsay

testimony offered by Detective W ilson to impeach Henry to h ave no p r o b a t ive v alue. Actually

, Henry ’s testimony was not struck, only his mention on direct ex amination of a rumor about th e

murder that he had heard “in the street.” Henry then testified on cross-ex amination that Appellant

was upset by the rumor that she had killed her h usband. Detective W ilson later t es t i fied without

objection that H enry “told u s that [ Appellant] had paid her c ousin Pierre $ 5,000 to kill [ the

victim] . . . . He didn’t say any thing about he heard. He told us as if he knew.”

6th e m

u rd e r o f h e r hu sb a nd

. S e e id

. a t 7 8 0 (e xp la in in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s

d iffic u lt fin a

n c ia l situ a tio n

, th e fa c t th a t sh e sto o d to g a in fro m h e r h u sb a n d ’s

d e a th a s th e b e n e fic ia ry o f h is life in su ra n c e p o lic ie s, a n d h e r th re a ts a n d v io le n t

a c tio n s to wa rd th e v ic tim we re re le v a nt in e sta blish in g he r g uilt b a se d e n tire ly

o n c irc u msta n tia l e v id e n c e ). Tu m lin a nd Bra n c h te stifie d th a t De Va u g h n

in d ic a te d th a t h e k ille d th e v ic tim fo r Ap p e lla n t. A n d fo u r c a lls we re p la c e d

b e twe e n Ap p e lla n t a n d De Va u g h n i n t h e ho u rs p re c e din g a n d fo llo w in g th e

sh o o tin g

. S e e Cra wfo rd v

. Sta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 8 9 8, 9 0 1 -9 0 2 (7 5 7 S E 2 d 1 0 2 ) (2 0 1 4 )

(p h o n e re c o rd s re fle c tin g fo u r c a lls b e twe e n th e p a rtie s to a m u rd e r on th e d a y

o f th e c rim e su ffic ie n tly c o rro b o ra te d a c c om p lic e ’s te stim o n y ). T a k e n a s a

wh o l e

, th is e vid e n c e wa s su ffic ie n t fo r th e ju ry to e x c lu d e e v e ry re a so n a b le

e x p la n a tio n sa v e th a t of Ap p e lla n t’s g u ilt. S e e Me rritt, 2 8 5 Ga . a t 7 7 9 (“ [Th e

c irc u m sta n tia l e v id e n c e ] n e e d n o t e x c lu de e v e ry c o n c e iv a b le in fe re n c e o r

h y p oth e sis – o n ly th o se th a t are re a so n a b le .” ).

(d ) Ap pe lla n t fu rth e r c o n te nd s th a t th e e v id e nc e wa s in su ffic ie n t

b e c a u se sh e wa s c o n v ic te d b a se d u p o n t h e te stim o n y o f a sin g le a c c o m p lic e

,

Ch risto p h e r Tu m lin

. Un d e r fo rm e r OCGA § 2 4-4 -8 (§ 2 4 -1 4-8 in th e n e w

Ev id e nc e Co d e ):

7Th e te stim on y o f a sin g le witn e ss is g e n e ra lly su ffic ie n t to e sta b lish

a fa c t. Ho w e ve r, in c e rta in c a se s, in c lu d in g

. . . fe lo n y c a se s wh e re

th e o n ly witn e ss is a n a c c o m p lic e

, th e te stim o ny of a sin g le witn e ss

is n o t su ffic ie n t. Ne v e rth e le ss, c o rro b o ra t i n g c irc u m sta n c e s m a y

d isp e nse with th e n e c e ssity f o r t he te stim o n y of a

se c o n d w itn e ss,

e x c e p t in p ro se c u tio n s fo r tre a so n

.

We h a v e e x p la in e d th a t u nd e r th is sta tu te

,

su ffic ie nt c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e m a y b e c irc u m sta n tia l, it m a y b e

slig h t, a n d it n e e d n o t o f itse lf b e su ffic ie n t to wa rra n t a c o n v ic tio n

o f th e c rime c h a rg e d

. It m u st, h o we ve r, be in d e p e n de n t o f th e

a c c o m p lic e te stim on y a n d m

u st d ire c tly c on n e c t th e d e fe n d a n t w ith

th e c rim e

, or le a d to th e in fe re n c e th a t h e is g uilty

. Slig h t e v id e n c e

fro m a n e x tra n e o u s so urc e id e n tify in g th e a c c u se d a s a p a rtic ip a n t

in th e c rim in a l ac t is su ffic ie n t c o rro bo ra tio n o f th e a c c o m plic e to

su p p o rt a v e rd ic t.

Th re a tt v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 4 9

, 5 5 1 (7 4 8 S E2 d 4 00 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (c ita tio n s a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). T h e c o rro b o ra tin g e vid e n c e m a y b e te stim o ny fr o m

a n o th e r a c c o m

p lic e

. S e e H a n ifa v

. S ta te

, 2 6 9 Ga

. 7 9 7

, 8 0 8 (5 0 5 S E2 d 7 3 1 )

(1 9 9 8 ).

Ap p e lla n t’s a rg u m e n t is m e ritle ss. Tu m lin ’s te stim o n y wa s n o t th e so le

b a sis fo r a fin d in g o f a n y e le m e n t o f th e offe n se s o f wh ic h Ap p e lla n t wa s

c o n v ic te d

, a n d in a n y e v e n t h is te stim o n y wa s a d e qu a te ly c o rro b o ra te d b y o th e r

e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g Bra n c h ’s te stim o ny

.

2

. Ap pe lla n t a

rg u e s th a t h e r c o n v ic tio n s sh ou ld b e r e v e rse d b e c a use

8th e tria l c o u rt a llo we d th e p ro se c u to r to o ffe r u n swo rn te stim o n y a b o u t h is ro le

in th e in ve stig a tio n d u rin g h is o p e n i n g sta te m e n t. A p pe lla n t d id n o t o b je c t to

th e pro se c u to r’s o p e n in g sta te m e n t, h owe v e r, a n d sh e th e re fo re fa ile d to

p r e se rv e th is issu e fo r a

p p e a l. S e e Jo h n so n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 6 4 1, 6 4 3 ( 7 4 8

S E2 d 8 9 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Ha ll v

. S ta te

, 2 92 G a

. 7 0 1

, 7 0 2 ( 7 4 3 S E2 d 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

Mo re o v e r, Ap p e lla nt ha s n o t sh o wn a ny h arm fro m th e o n ly a sp e c t o f th e

p ro se c u to r’s o p e n in g sta te m e n t th a t wa s n ot su p p o rte d b y th e e v id e n c e th e S ta te

th e n p re se n te d to th e ju ry – a b rie f re fe re n c e to wh e n th e p ro se c u to r h a d b e e n

a ssig ne d th e c a se

. Se e Bu rg e so n v

. S ta te

, 2 6 7 Ga

. 1 0 2

, 10 7 (4 7 5 S E2 d 5 8 0 )

(1 9 9 6 ). We n o te in th is re sp e c t th a t p rio r to o p e n in g sta te m e n ts, th e tria l c o urt

in stru c te d th e ju ry th at “ [ t ]h is o p e n in g sta te m e n t is n o t e v id e nc e

. Re m e m b e r

th a t wh a t th e la wy e rs sa y is n o t e v id e n c e b ut it is a pre vie w o r a n o u tlin e o f wh a t

th e y e x p e c t th e e v id e nc e to b e .”

3

. Ap pe lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b y a llo win g a m e d ic a l

e x a m in e r w h o did n o t p e rfo rm th e v ic tim ’s a u to psy to te stify th a t th e v ic tim ’s

c a u se o f d e a th wa s g u n sh o t wo u n d s t o t h e h e a d an d to rso

. Ag a in

, ho we ve r,

Ap p e lla n t d id no t o bje c t to th e m e d i c a l e x a m in e r’s te stim o n y a t tria l a n d

th e re fo re fa ile d to p re se rv e th is issu e fo r a p pe a l. S e e Wh ite he a d v

. S ta te

, 2 8 7

9Ga . 2 42 , 2 4 6 (6 9 5 S E2 d 2 5 5 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

In a n y e v e nt, th is Co u rt h a s h e ld

, a s a m a tte r o f Ge o rg iae v id e n c e la w in

e ffe c t a t th e tim e of th is tria l, th a t “ [a ]n e x p e rt m ay b a se h e r o p in io n s o n d a ta

g a th e re d b y o th e rs.” Wa tk in s v

. S ta te

, 28 5 G a

. 3 5 5

, 3 5 8 (6 7 6 S E2 d 1 9 6 )

(2 0 0 9 ). 3 Th e m e d ic a l e x a m in e r wh o te stifie d w a s n ot a “m e re c o n d u it” fo r th e

fin d in g s o f th e m e d ic a l e xa m in e r wh o p e rfo rm e d th e a u to p sy

, w h o h a d m o v e d

o u t o f sta te b y th e tim e o f tria l a n d wa s u n a va ilable to te stify . Id

. In ste a d

, th e

te stify in g e x p e rt re v ie we d th e x -ra y s a n d p ho to g ra p h s ta k e n d urin g th e a

u to p sy

a s we ll a s th e a

u to psy re p o rt a n d re a c h e d h e r o wn o p in io n

. S e e Re c to r v

. S ta te

,

2 8 5 Ga

. 71 4

, 7 1 5 -7 16 (6 81 S E2 d 1 5 7 ) (2 00 9). Mo re o v e r, th e a d m issio n o f th is

e x p e rt te stim o n y wa s h a rm le ss, b e c a u se th e fa c t th a t th e v ic tim h a d b e e n sh o t to

d e a th wa s ne v e r d isp u te d a t tria l, wh e re e y e w itn e ss e vid e n c e e sta b lish e d th a t th e

v ic tim h a d b e e n sh o t m

u ltip l e tim e s a t c lo se ra n g e a n d le ft ly in g in a d e se rte d

d riv e wa y . S e e id . a t 7 1 6

.

4

. F in a lly

, Ap p e lla n t c o n te nd s th a t th e tria l c o u rt v io la te d th e

c o n tin u in g witn e ss ru le by a llo win g Tu m l i n ’s v id e o ta pe d sta te m e n t to th e

3 The new Evidence Code addresses this issue in OCGA § 24-7-703. See a lso OCGA § 24-

7-705.

1 0p o li c e

, wh ic h Ap p e lla n t ha d a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e d u rin g Tu m lin ’s c ro sse x a m in a tio n

, to b e re p la y e d to th e ju ry m u ltip le tim e s

– d u rin g th e su b se q u e n t

te stim o n y o f a d e te c tiv e wh o to o k th e sta te m e n t, d u rin g th e S ta te ’s c lo sin g

a rg u m e n t, a n d in th e c o u rtro o m a t th e ju ry ’s re q u e st d u rin g its d e lib e ra tio n s.

Ye t a g a in

, Ap p e lla n t d id n o t o b je c t a t tria l, a n d th us sh e fa ile d to p re se rv e th is

c la im fo r a

p p e a l. S e e Wh ite h e a d

, 2 8 7 Ga

. a t 24 6. B u t in a ny e v e n t, o b je c tio n s

b a se d o n th e c o n tin uin g witn e ss ru le wo u ld h a v e b e e n m e ritle ss. T ha t ru le o f

Ge o rg ia la w re g u la te s wh ic h d o c u m e n ts o r re c o rd in g s g o in to th e ju ry ro o m

with th e ju ry d u rin g de lib e ra tio n s a n d wh ic h o n e s d o n o t. S e e P a u l S . Milic h

,

Ga . Ru le s o f Ev id e nc e § 1 9 :8 (2 0 1 4 -2 01 5 e d

. ). Th e ru le h a s n o a p p lic a tio n to

th e re p la y in g o f r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t s d u r in g th e e x a m in a tio n o f witn e sse s, d u rin g

c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, o r in th e c o u rtro o m a t th e ju ry ’s re q ue st d u rin g d e lib e ra tio n s.

S e e L o p e z v. Sta te

, 2 9 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 1 0. 2 1 4 (6 61 S E 2 d 6 1 8 ) (2 0 0 8) (“ [T] h e

c o n tin u in g witn e ss ru le do e s n o t a p p ly wh e re

, a s h e re

, th e v id e ota p e wa s

re p la y e d to th e ju ry a

sin g le tim e ‘in a

c o n tro lle d e n v iro nm e nt, th e c o u rtro o m

,

with a ll p a rtie s a n d th e tria l ju d g e p re se n t.’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

1 1