According to the record, it appears the State's production of discovery included copies of the lab reports as attachments. SeeState v. Young, 552 So.2d 669, 672 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989).
It is immaterial who prepared the report, as long as the witness can testify to the fact after refreshing his or her memory because the testimony of the witness is the evidence, not the writing itself. State v. Young, 552 So.2d 669 (La.App. 2 Cir.1989). Lieutenant Johnson was called as a defense witness.
It is immaterial who prepared the report, as long as the witness can testify to the fact after refreshing his or her memory because the testimony of the witness is the evidence, not the writing itself. State v. Young, 552 So.2d 669 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1989).
Further, when a writing is used to refresh a witness' memory, "it is the testimony and not the writing which is the evidence." State v. Young, 552 So.2d 669 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1989). In this case, it is clear that the writing was specifically used to refresh Ms. George's memory and it was not used for impeachment purposes, as now alleged by defendant.
It is not the writing that is the evidence but the testimony of the witnesses (emphasis added). State v. Young, 552 So.2d 669 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989); LSA-C.E. Art. 612(B). The record does not reflect that the witness was reading his report into evidence.
Further, the crime lab reports were properly introduced pursuant to La.R.S. 15:499-15:501. State v. Young, 552 So.2d 669 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989). These assignments are without merit.