(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Shelnutt v. State, 255 Ga.App. 157, 158(1)(a), 564 S.E.2d 774 (2002).The State has a constitutional obligation to preserve evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense.
Nevertheless, a mistrial is not always required when testimony improperly touches upon the character of the accused, especially when the testimony is not purposefully elicited by the State. See Shelnutt v. State, 255 Ga. App. 157, 158 (1) (a) ( 564 SE2d 774) (2002) (a "voluntary remark . . . not invited by court or counsel" does not necessarily require a mistrial); see also Mister v. State, 286 Ga. 303, 306 (3) ( 687 SE2d 471) (2009); Carr v. State, 282 Ga. 698, 701-702 (3) ( 653 SE2d 472) (2007); Mathis v. State, 299 Ga. App. 831, 835 (1) (c) (i) ( 684 SE2d 6) (2009). Instead, as our Supreme Court has explained, "[w]hen prejudicial matter is improperly placed before the jury, a mistrial is appropriate if it is essential to the preservation of the defendant's right to a fair trial."
As counsel conceded he had not met the requirements for introducing either category of evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. See generally Shelnutt v. State, 255 Ga. App. 157, 159 (2) ( 564 SE2d 774) (2002).Judgment affirmed.
Pinkins v. State, 243 Ga. App. 737, 741 ( 534 S.E.2d 192) (2000).Shelnutt v. State, 255 Ga. App. 157, 158 ( 564 S.E.2d 774) (2002). When juror misconduct is alleged, the trial court must determine first whether juror misconduct occurred and then whether the juror is qualified to continue on the case by holding a hearing under OCGA § 15-12-67.
"`(A) motion for mistrial which is not made at the time the questions objected to are answered is not timely and will be considered as waived because of the delay in making it.' [Cit.]" Shelnutt v. State, 255 Ga. App. 157, 158-159(1)(b) (S.E.2d) (2002). 4. Mckee also contends that the trial court erred by not granting her motion for mistrial after the prosecuting attorney stated during closing argument that if she had taken the state-administered blood test it would have been positive for illegal drugs.