Crawford violation in Georgia

2007See Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180, 182 (2) ( 611 SE2d 31 ) (2005) (Crawford violation is harmless where the improperly admitted testimony “was cumulative of other admissible evidence”) (citation omitted); accord Buttram v. State, 280 Ga. 595, 597 (4) ( 631 SE2d 642 ) (2006).

2007See Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180, 182 (2) ( 611 SE2d 31 ) (2005) (Crawford violation is harmless where the improperly admitted testimony “was cumulative of other admissible evidence”) (citation omitted); accord Buttram v. State, 280 Ga. 595, 597 (4) ( 631 SE2d 642 ) (2006).

2018See Billings v. State , 293 Ga. 99 , 104 (4), 745 S.E.2d 583 (2013) (concluding that co-defendant's statements to girlfriend were not "testimonial" under Crawford standard, because they were not the product of police investigation intended to produce evidence for trial, and therefore no Bruton violation occurred).

2018See Billings v. State , 293 Ga. 99 , 104 (4), 745 S.E.2d 583 (2013) (concluding that co-defendant's statements to girlfriend were not "testimonial" under Crawford standard, because they were not the product of police investigation intended to produce evidence for trial, and therefore no Bruton violation occurred).

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007Daniels v. State, 280 Ga. 349, 351 (2) ( 628 SE2d 110 ) (2006); Willingham v. State, 279 Ga. 886, 887 (1) ( 622 SE2d 343 ) (2005).

2007See Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180, 182 (2) ( 611 SE2d 31 ) (2005) (Crawford violation is harmless where the improperly admitted testimony “was cumulative of other admissible evidence”) (citation omitted); accord Buttram v. State, 280 Ga. 595, 597 (4) ( 631 SE2d 642 ) (2006).

2007See Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180, 182 (2) ( 611 SE2d 31 ) (2005) (Crawford violation is harmless where the improperly admitted testimony “was cumulative of other admissible evidence”) (citation omitted); accord Buttram v. State, 280 Ga. 595, 597 (4) ( 631 SE2d 642 ) (2006).

2011In any event, even if the officer had testified regarding statements made by Haynes, “[Carter] failed to object to the admission of [such] testimony as violative of his right of confrontation and as error under Crawford-, therefore, this alleged Crawford violation is not properly considered on appeal.” (Citation omitted.) Treadwell v. State, 285 Ga. 736, 739 (1) (a) ( 684 SE2d 244 ) (2009). *53 (b) With regard to the victim’s family members allegedly leaving the courtroom crying and a juror crying, Carter’s claim is belied by the record.

2011In any event, even if the officer had testified regarding statements made by Haynes, “[Carter] failed to object to the admission of [such] testimony as violative of his right of confrontation and as error under Crawford-, therefore, this alleged Crawford violation is not properly considered on appeal.” (Citation omitted.) Treadwell v. State, 285 Ga. 736, 739 (1) (a) ( 684 SE2d 244 ) (2009). *53 (b) With regard to the victim’s family members allegedly leaving the courtroom crying and a juror crying, Carter’s claim is belied by the record.

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2025Whitehead then testified, “The detective asked me if I thought that [Crawford’s] temper got the best of him and I agreed it had.” ————————————————————— in issue”; and “[n]ot based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” OCGA § 24-7-701(a)(1)-(3). 26 Again, Rule 701(a) “allows lay witness testimony in the form of opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to a clear understanding of the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Bullard v. State, 307 Ga. 482, 491 (2019)

2014See Muse v. State, 293 Ga. 647, 651 (2) (a) ( 748 SE2d 904 ) (2013) (Addressing a temporary courtroom closure during voir dire on jury members’ experience with sensitive sexual topics, “[w] e cannot say that it was unreasonable for the lawyer to think that closing the courtroom might facilitate his efforts to [obtain a favorable jury composition], and Appellant has failed, therefore, to overcome the strong presumption that the failure of her lawyer to object to the closing was a reasonable trial strategy.”); Abernathy, 289 Ga. at 611 (5) (“Given that the [closure] was designed with the express

2014See Muse v. State, 293 Ga. 647, 651 (2) (a) ( 748 SE2d 904 ) (2013) (Addressing a temporary courtroom closure during voir dire on jury members’ experience with sensitive sexual topics, “[w] e cannot say that it was unreasonable for the lawyer to think that closing the courtroom might facilitate his efforts to [obtain a favorable jury composition], and Appellant has failed, therefore, to overcome the strong presumption that the failure of her lawyer to object to the closing was a reasonable trial strategy.”); Abernathy, 289 Ga. at 611 (5) (“Given that the [closure] was designed with the express

2014See also Boyd v. State, 286 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 686 SE2d 109 ) (2009) (overwhelming evidence can render harmless a Crawford violation arising from the admission of hearsay). 16 (c) Consenting to close the courtroom during sentencing.

2014See also Boyd v. State, 286 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 686 SE2d 109 ) (2009) (overwhelming evidence can render harmless a Crawford violation arising from the admission of hearsay). 16 (c) Consenting to close the courtroom during sentencing.

2014See Muse v. State, 293 Ga. 647, 651 (2) (a) ( 748 SE2d 904 ) (2013) (Addressing a temporary courtroom closure during voir dire on jury members’ experience with sensitive sexual topics, “[w] e cannot say that it was unreasonable for the lawyer to think that closing the courtroom might facilitate his efforts to [obtain a favorable jury composition], and Appellant has failed, therefore, to overcome the strong presumption that the failure of her lawyer to object to the closing was a reasonable trial strategy.”); Abernathy, 289 Ga. at 611 (5) (“Given that the [closure] was designed with the express

2014See Muse v. State, 293 Ga. 647, 651 (2) (a) ( 748 SE2d 904 ) (2013) (Addressing a temporary courtroom closure during voir dire on jury members’ experience with sensitive sexual topics, “[w] e cannot say that it was unreasonable for the lawyer to think that closing the courtroom might facilitate his efforts to [obtain a favorable jury composition], and Appellant has failed, therefore, to overcome the strong presumption that the failure of her lawyer to object to the closing was a reasonable trial strategy.”); Abernathy, 289 Ga. at 611 (5) (“Given that the [closure] was designed with the express

2012“Failure to make a meritless or futile objection or motion cannot be evidence of ineffective assistance.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gross v. State, 312 Ga. App. 362, 364 (2) ( 718 SE2d 581 ) (2011) (no ineffective assistance in failing to object to aggravated assault charge). (c) As for Crawford’s claim that counsel should have requested *800 an impeachment charge because of purported conflicts in the evidence, “we note that [Crawford] has not indicated precisely what jury charge should have been requested.” Gross, supra at 364 (2).

2012“Failure to make a meritless or futile objection or motion cannot be evidence of ineffective assistance.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gross v. State, 312 Ga. App. 362, 364 (2) ( 718 SE2d 581 ) (2011) (no ineffective assistance in failing to object to aggravated assault charge). (c) As for Crawford’s claim that counsel should have requested *800 an impeachment charge because of purported conflicts in the evidence, “we note that [Crawford] has not indicated precisely what jury charge should have been requested.” Gross, supra at 364 (2).

2009Walton v. State, supra at 434 (1).

2009Walton v. State, supra at 434 (1).

2008The appeal was docketed in this Court on June 5, 2007, and was subsequently submitted for decision on the briefs. 2 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004). 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U. S. 36 . 5 Porter v. State, 278 Ga. 694, 696 ( 606 SE2d 240 ) (2004) (a Crawford violation canbe found to be harmless if the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming).

2008The appeal was docketed in this Court on June 5, 2007, and was subsequently submitted for decision on the briefs. 2 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004). 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 4 Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U. S. 36 . 5 Porter v. State, 278 Ga. 694, 696 ( 606 SE2d 240 ) (2004) (a Crawford violation canbe found to be harmless if the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming).

2007Daniels v. State, 280 Ga. 349, 351 (2) ( 628 SE2d 110 ) (2006); Willingham v. State, 279 Ga. 886, 887 (1) ( 622 SE2d 343 ) (2005).

2007Daniels v. State, 280 Ga. 349, 351 (2) ( 628 SE2d 110 ) (2006); Willingham v. State, 279 Ga. 886, 887 (1) ( 622 SE2d 343 ) (2005).

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007Id. at 68 ; Whorton v. Bockting, _ U. S. _ (127 SC 1173, 1181, 167 LE2d 1) (2007) (Crawford announced a new procedural rule); Turner v. State, 281 Ga. 647, 650-651 ( 641 SE2d 527 ) (2007) (Crawford rule does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay).

2007Id. at 68 ; Whorton v. Bockting, _ U. S. _ (127 SC 1173, 1181, 167 LE2d 1) (2007) (Crawford announced a new procedural rule); Turner v. State, 281 Ga. 647, 650-651 ( 641 SE2d 527 ) (2007) (Crawford rule does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay).

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2007(Crawford violation requires reversal where hearsay evidence went to core issue of case and was the only direct evidence placing defendant at the scene); Brawner, supra (reversal required where hearsay evidence, although cumulative of other evidence, went to “core issue of the case” and remaining State witnesses were impeached); Senior, supra (reversal required where inadmissible testimony “went to the core of the [S]tate’s case and was not entirely cumulative of other testimony’); compare Humphrey v. State, 281 Ga. 596, 599-600 (3) ( 642 SE2d 23 ) (2007) (Crawford violation does not warrant n

2005See Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763 , 765 n. 2 ( 604 SE2d 804 ) (2004) (finding that an unavailable witness’ statements to close friends were not testimonial in nature, so the statements were not subject to a Crawford analysis). 3.

2005See Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763 , 765 n. 2 ( 604 SE2d 804 ) (2004) (finding that an unavailable witness’ statements to close friends were not testimonial in nature, so the statements were not subject to a Crawford analysis). 3.