(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State , 200 Ga. App. 103, 103, 407 S.E.2d 85 (1991) ; see also Bell , 263 Ga. App. at 896 (1), 589 S.E.2d 653.The thrust of the child witness statute is to allow the jury, which must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to judge the credibility of a child's accusations.
Bell v. State, 263 Ga. App. 894, 896 (1) ( 589 SE2d 653) (2003).Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 SE2d 85) (1991). This Court has also expressly rejected Stegall's argument that this interpretation of the availability requirement of OCGA § 24-3-16 violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against her. "So long as the witness is made available for confrontation and cross-examination, the defendant's rights are protected," (punctuation omitted) ( McGarity v. State), and "[a] defendant is not denied the right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination when the witness appears to answer as well as he or she is capable of answering."
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 (1) ( 407 SE2d 85) (1991). Where, as here, the victim could not reiterate the molestation incidents at trial, the jury apparently chose to credit T. W.'s taped interview.
With regard to the child's ability at trial to remember the day in question, this is not a question of competency, and Kelly was free to cross-examine the child on that very point. See Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85) (1991). 4. Kelly contends that the court erred in failing to grant his request to query a juror who allegedly made hostile stares and mouthed hostile words toward defense counsel after being picked for the jury.
See Reynolds v. State, 257 Ga. 725 (4) ( 363 S.E.2d 249) (1988)." Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85). "OCGA § 24-9-5 (b) expressly leaves credibility to the determination of the jury. So long as the witness is made available for confrontation and cross-examination, the defendant's rights are protected, even if the witness is uncommunicative or unresponsive. . . . If a child, who has reported child molestation to an adult permitted to testify to the out-of-court statement at trial, is incapable of reiterating the accusation at trial or is unresponsive or evasive during cross-examination, the jury must decide the child's credibility, taking into consideration the child's maturity and ability to withstand the pressure and intimidation of the courtroom environment.
OCGA § 24-3-16 "requires only that the child be available to testify; it does not require the child to corroborate the hearsay testimony." Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85) (1991). See also Braddy v. State, 205 Ga. App. 424, 425 (2) ( 422 S.E.2d 260) (1992).
[Cit.]" Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85) (1991). Construing the evidence most strongly against appellant, it was sufficient to authorize a rational trior of fact to find proof of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Reynolds v. State, 257 Ga. 725 (4) ( 363 S.E.2d 249) (1988)." Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85). In the case sub judice, the four-year-old victim testified, but he did not remember if his mother (defendant Wanda Braddy) was present when defendant James Braddy sexually molested him.
[Cit.]" Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 103 ( 407 S.E.2d 85) (1991). Accordingly, we find that Byrd's right to confront and cross-examine J. B. was protected in spite of the child's unresponsiveness on cross-examination as to the merits of the case brought against him.
Herrington, supra, 241 Ga.App. at 329, 527 S.E.2d 33. Finally, the victim was made available at trial for confrontation and cross-examination, at which time the jury was allowed to judge the credibility of the child's accusations. See Jones v. State, 200 Ga.App. 103, 103–104, 407 S.E.2d 85 (1991) (“The thrust of the child witness statute is to allow the jury, which must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to judge the credibility of a child's accusations.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). “A witness' responsiveness or unresponsiveness, evasiveness or directness, verbal skills, intelligence, memory, perception, and apparent understanding are all factors which can be assessed by the jury and may raise a reasonable doubt.”