We review the trial court's ruling here for abuse of discretion. See Phillips v. State , 289 Ga.App. 281, 282(2), 656 S.E.2d 905 (2008). The trial court concluded that the excluded portion of Crane's conversation with Appellant “was not necessary to explain” Crane's testimony on direct examination.
(punctuation omitted); accord Baugh v. State, 276 Ga. 736, 739(2), 585 S.E.2d 616 (2003).See Phillips v. State, 289 Ga.App. 281, 282(1), 656 S.E.2d 905 (2008) (holding that any error in admitting results of breath test through admission of breathalyzer's certificate of inspection, which defendant claimed constituted inadmissible testimonial hearsay, was harmless when the jury acquitted defendant of driving under the influence with an unlawful blood-alcohol concentration).See Character v. State, 285 Ga. 112, 120(6), 674 S.E.2d 280 (2009) (holding that admission of prior statement constituted error, but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact); Johnson, 328 Ga.App. at 707(2), 760 S.E.2d 682 (holding that admission of hearsay was unlikely to have contributed to the verdict when other admissible evidence established the same fact).
See Knight v. State, 266 Ga. 47, 48 (2) ( 464 SE2d 201) (1995) (prior inconsistent statement of witness who takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination is admissible as substantive evidence). See generally id.; Overton v. State, 295 Ga. App. 223, 236-237 (5) ( 671 SE2d 507) (2008) (noting that prior statements may be admissible under the rule of completeness); Phillips v. State, 289 Ga. App. 281, 282 (2) ( 656 SE2d 905) (2008) (same). Davis raises no Confrontation Clause challenge to Hill's out-of-court statement; indeed, "the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is not implicated where the proponent of the hearsay is the defendant."