The defendant had no right to examine the witness' report which was used to refresh his memory and which was not in evidence. Reece v. State, 160 Ga. App. 59 (1) ( 286 S.E.2d 41) (1981), citing McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606 (5) ( 266 S.E.2d 210) (1980); Smith v. Smith, 222 Ga. 313, 315 ( 149 S.E.2d 683) (1966); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718 ( 203 S.E.2d 537) (1974); Jackson v. State, 242 Ga. 692 ( 251 S.E.2d 282) (1978). ( Jackson v. State, supra, involved a State Crime Laboratory report, as does the case sub judice.)

Defendant had no right to examine such statements. McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606 (5) ( 266 S.E.2d 210), and cases there cited. Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

1. During cross-examination, counsel for the defendants was not entitled to examine the document utilized by the state's witness to refresh his memory. McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606 (5) ( 266 S.E.2d 210). Accord, Smith v. Smith, 222 Ga. 313, 315 ( 149 S.E.2d 683); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718 ( 203 S.E.2d 537); Jackson v. State, 242 Ga. 692 ( 251 S.E.2d 282).

It is clear that the request was based on the mere hope that he might discover something in the notes favorable to him, and it is well settled that a party has no right to examine for this purpose private notes used by a witness to refresh his recollection. See, e.g., McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606 (5) ( 266 S.E.2d 210) (1980), and cases cited therein. Although the defendant urges this court to overrule this line of cases, we are without authority to overrule Supreme Court precedent.