 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reese v. State10/23/2001
(1952). Reese cannot show that the trial court had any direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the case; the effect of any ruling that the city court was not lawfully established on the trial court's future employment is a matter of speculation. The trial court did not err by ruling on Reese's motion to recuse because the motion was legally deficient on its face.
6. Reese claims the trial court erred by refusing to allow a defense witness to testify concerning an out-of-court statement made by State witness Andreson. Defense counsel maintained that the statement would be submitted for the purpose of showing Andreson's bias. However, Reese made no proffer as to what this statement would be. Furthermore,
Before a witness may be impeached by calling other witnesses to prove acts or declarations showing partiality, a . . . foundation must first be laid by cross-examining the witness sought to be impeached as to his feelings toward the party. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Simmons v. State, 266 Ga. 223, 227 (4) (466 SE2d 205) (1996).
No foundation was laid for Andreson's impeachment on the question of his bias. The trial court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the introduction of Andreson's out- of-court statement.
7. Finally, Reese argues that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to produce the original of the videotape of his arrest so that he could inspect the original for alterations or omissions. There is no basis for suspecting that the original tape was tampered with. More importantly, the videotape used at trial was authenticated by Officer Centola as an accurate depiction of the arrest. We note that although Officer Centola was served with a subpoena requiring him to bring the original videotape to trial, he testified that he was not the custodian of the original tape. OCGA § 24-5-4 (b), the best evidence rule, does not apply to videotapes. See Cleveland v. State, 204 Ga. App. 101, 102 (2) (418 SE2d 430) (1992). We find no error in the trial court's failure to require the State to produce the original videotape.
Reese also includes an argument under this enumeration of error regarding the trial court's failure to allow a witness to testify. The argument is not supported by reference to the record and has no connection to the enumeration of error under which it appears. We will not consider it. See Duffey v. State, 232 Ga. App. 693 (498 SE2d 816) (1998).
Judgment affirmed.
Eldridge and Miller, JJ., concur.
|