MCFADDEN, P. J., RICKMAN and MARKLE, JJ.
McFadden, Presiding Judge.
jury trial, Kareem Daniels was convicted of robbery by force.
He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not
allowing him to impeach the victim with a prior inconsistent
statement, that the state knowingly failed to correct false
testimony from the victim, and that the admission of black
and white photographs instead of the original color versions
constituted plain error. But Daniels has failed to show that
the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting
cross-examination about a collateral matter, that the
testimony in question was actually false, or that the
admission of the photographs affected the outcome of the
trial. Accordingly, we affirm.
Facts and procedural posture.
in favor of the verdict, see Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979), the
evidence shows that on September 28, 2012, Lekeidra Taylor
was walking to her apartment from a bus stop after work when
Daniels drove slowly past her in an SUV. Daniels parked his
vehicle in the apartment complex, got out of it, and forced
Taylor into the back seat of his vehicle. Taylor pushed
Daniels away and got out of the vehicle, but during the
struggle Daniels took Taylor's wallet from her. Taylor
used her cell phone to take a picture of Daniels holding her
wallet and a picture of the license plate on his vehicle.
Daniels eventually left the scene in his vehicle and Taylor
called 911 to report the incident. Police apprehended Daniels
later that evening.
jury found Daniels guilty of robbery by force and the trial
court imposed a 20-year sentence, with five years to be
served in confinement and the remainder to be served on
probation. Daniels appealed, and this court granted
his motion to remand the case to the trial court to consider
the admission of photographic evidence and whether the state
had knowingly elicited false testimony from the victim. After
a hearing on remand, the trial court found no errors and
denied a new trial. Daniels filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied, and this appeal followed.
Prior inconsistent statement.
contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from
impeaching the victim with a prior inconsistent statement. We
review that ruling for abuse of discretion and find no such
abuse. See Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 829, 833 (4)
(750 S.E.2d 297) (2013); Cruz v. State, 347 Ga.App.
810, 813 (2) (821 S.E.2d 44) (2018).
direct examination, Taylor testified that she had met Daniels
several months before the robbery while she was working at a
Kroger grocery store. While explaining that at the time of
the robbery she no longer worked at Kroger but was working at
a hotel, Taylor testified: "I basically left Kroger
because I wanted to . . . get into the healthcare field. And
when it really wasn't going well for me, I still had my
CNA [certified nursing assistant] at that time, I had
finished job corp[s] and it was kind of hard to find a CNA
job, so I tried looking for other jobs and that's when I
went into the [hotel] position[.]" On cross-examination,
defense counsel sought to impeach Taylor's testimony that
she had left Kroger to get into the healthcare field by
asking her if the reason she had left was because she had
been caught shoplifting. Taylor replied: "No, I
wasn't caught shoplifting."
state objected to the line of questioning as irrelevant.
Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel produced a
statement that Taylor had purportedly written upon resigning
from Kroger. Counsel read the following statement into the
I did a transaction for a refund that I put on a gift card
that I didn't buy. I didn't receive as a gift. I kept
the gift card and used it. I've also used another
employee's Kroger card to get his employee discount.
Earlier this week, I did another transaction, the same as one
month ago and did the same thing. I'm willing to pay back
the money that I put on the gift cards and the money that was
discounted to me from the employee Kroger card. As of March
31, I will resign from Kroger.
trial court sustained the state's objection and
prohibited use of the statement for further questioning about
Taylor's resignation from Kroger, finding that it was
irrelevant and collateral to the issues in the case.
OCGA § 24-6-613 (b).
new Evidence Code took effect on January 1, 2013,
[approximately 10 months] before [Daniels'] trial began.
On the issue of admitting extrinsic evidence of a
witness's prior inconsistent statement, OCGA §
24-6-613 (b) substantially adopted the language of Federal
Rule of ...