See Holden v. State, 287 Ga.App. 472, 477(4)(b), 651 S.E.2d 552 (2007) (better practice not to give pattern charge on prior consistent statements as substantive evidence). Compare Williams v. State, 201 Ga.App. 416, 417(2), 411 S.E.2d 310 (1991) (holding that rule announcing forbidden jury charge would not go into effect until case announcing rule appeared in advance sheets). Although the Supreme Court held that the charge should no longer be routinely given, it also recognized that a trial court's error in giving the now forbidden pattern charge on prior consistent statements “will usually be harmless.
There was no dispute that he used such a chain, and the length of the chain was not an issue at trial. See Williams v. State, 201 Ga. App. 416, 417(3) ( 411 S.E.2d 310) (1991). Under these circumstances, trial counsel's failure to object to the admission of the chain did not constitute ineffective assistance.