Ruffin v. the State, 333 Ga. App. 793

Defendant Jerry Lamar Ruffin was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against an eight‑year‑old, including rape, statutory rape, incest, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and two counts of child molestation.
A family nurse practitioner testified as an expert on the forensic sexual assault exam she performed and described abnormal hymenal findings.
The nurse used and labeled a basic anatomical line drawing (State’s Exhibit 11) during testimony; the exhibit was admitted without objection.
After instructions, defense counsel voiced a vague “small issue” about the diagram going to the jury room but did not articulate a specific legal ground (e.g., continuing witness rule).
The trial court indicated it would allow the exhibit to go out; the record does not clearly show whether the diagram actually accompanied the jury during deliberations.

Issue	Ruffin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether allowing the anatomical diagram to go to the jury violated the continuing‑witness rule	The diagram was a “continuing witness” (written testimony equivalent) and should not have gone out with the jury	The diagram was demonstrative, illustrative of testimony, not the functional equivalent of a deposition; continuing‑witness rule inapplicable	Court held the diagram is demonstrative evidence, not continuing‑witness material; no error in allowing it to go out
Whether the objection was preserved for appeal	Counsel objected but only said he had a “small issue” and the exhibit was “benign”	The defense failed to state a specific ground for objection at trial	Court held the objection was too vague to preserve the continuing‑witness claim; waiver
Whether the evidence supported the convictions (reviewed sua sponte)	N/A (defendant did not raise general grounds)	State: victim’s testimony and medical evidence sufficed	Court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could convict; victim’s testimony alone was sufficient

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Tibbs v. Tibbs, 257 Ga. 370 (1992) (continuing‑witness rule explained; written testimony may not be sent to jury)
James v. State, 270 Ga. 675 (1999) (anatomical charts used to illustrate testimony are demonstrative, not continuing‑witness evidence)
Slade v. State, 287 Ga. App. 34 (2007) (general/vague objections insufficient to preserve appellate review)
Johnson v. State, 287 Ga. App. 533 (2007) (defendant must articulate specific grounds for objection to preserve issue)
Gant v. State, 313 Ga. App. 329 (2011) (burden on appellant to show an exhibit actually went out with the jury)