However, Phillips admitted that the paternity was uncertain, and the State introduced Grant's birth certificate, which did not list the father's name. See generally Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 570 (4) ( 284 SE2d 277) (1981). Even if Phillips was disqualified, that fact, "standing alone, is not sufficient to require the grant of a new trial."
McDaniel v. State, 204 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 420 S.E.2d 636) (1992). See also Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572 (7) ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981); Thomason v. State, 215 Ga. App. 189, 190 (4) ( 450 S.E.2d 283) (1994). Moreover, nothing in the record shows that the warrant and affidavit were sent out with the jury.
Because there was no dispute that he fired the gun, the decisive question was whether he was justified in doing so. Because the officers found no evidence on that controlling issue in either the automobile or the house, the denial of appellant's motion to suppress, if error, was harmless at most. Muff v. State, 254 Ga. 45, 48 (2) (b) ( 326 S.E.2d 454) (1985); Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 569 (2) ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981); Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665, 673 (9) ( 229 S.E.2d 390) (1976). 6. Villegas urges that the arresting officers' failure to advise him of his right to contact the El Salvadorian consulate was a violation of the Vienna Convention requiring dismissal of the indictment and suppression of his statement.
The introduction of the [shells] added nothing to the state's case. [Cits.] Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 569 ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981). b. The jury was informed that Dawn had erased part of the tape, and she was thoroughly questioned about the tape by the appellant's attorney before it was played to the jury.
After reviewing the trial court's charge to the jury as a whole, we find no error. This court has recognized that a single instruction to the jury may not be judged in isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 ( 94 S.C. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368) (1973); Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567 ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981); Wells v. State, 247 Ga. 792 ( 279 S.E.2d 213) (1981). The charge in the instant case instructed the jury: "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be convicted of a crime unless each essential element of such crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the appellate court, we will not interfere with the trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial based on a juror's disqualifying relationship when there is any evidence to support the trial court's factual findings. Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 570 (4) ( 284 SE2d 277) (1981). The trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial based on evidence of a disqualifying relationship is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
While the requirement for such an objection to be made where there has been an objection to the admissibility of the evidence seems totally unnecessary, we are constrained to follow this long-established rule. Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572 (7) ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.
(c) Furthermore, the gun used in the shooting was never found; thus, the bullet was not introduced as a prerequisite to the admission of expert ballistic testimony attempting to link the bullet to the gun, or to link both the bullet and gun to appellant. Compare Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 569 (2) ( 284 S.E.2d 277). The victim testified without objection that the bullet was the one taken from his body. The detective testified without objection that the bullet appeared to be of .38 caliber.
]" Miller Distrib. Co. v. Rollins, 163 Ga. App. 635, 636 (1) ( 295 S.E.2d 187) (1982). See also Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572 (7) ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981); Stidem v. State, 246 Ga. 637, 639 (3) ( 272 S.E.2d 338) (1980). "We note, in addition, that there is nothing in the record to substantiate the appellant's argument that this did in fact occur.
Their contents orally testified to are admissible but the inclusion of the documents themselves as exhibits for consideration in the jury room is not. Davis v. State, 178 Ga. App. 760, 763 (3) ( 344 S.E.2d 730) (1986); Morrow v. State, 166 Ga. App. 883, 884 (1) ( 305 S.E.2d 626) (1983). See Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572 (7) ( 284 S.E.2d 277) (1981). Appellant also argues that the documents contain additional evidence not testified to by the detective, plus the hearsay of an unnamed informant and the finding of probable cause by the magistrate, see Spence v. State, 96 Ga. App. 19, 21 ( 99 S.E.2d 309) (1957), but these grounds were not raised below.