Robert Earl Barrett brings this appeal from his conviction of aggravated assault following the denial of his motion for a new trial.
1. It was not error for the trial court to fail to give appellant’s requested charge on good character. Character evidence is limited to
*706
the general reputation оf the person in the community, not to what the witness knows personally about him.
Smith v. State,
Nonе of appellant’s witnesses ever properly raised the issue of the defendant’s good character, and appellant did not raise the issue himself. His testimony revealed only his name, age, address, where he went to school, his occupation, the length of time that he has been a carpentеr, the number of his children, and his version of the events on the day in question, including his good relationship with the victim.
2. The trial court was authorized under OCGA § 17-14-10 to order restitution as a condition of probation.
Day v. State,
3. Appellant also asserts as error the trial court’s grant of the jury’s request to rehear a portion of a witness’ testimony on direct examination after it began deliberations.
We note that appellant did not raise any objection to the reading of this testimony until after it had been read. Assuming,
arguendo,
that the оbjection was timely raised, we find no error. The trial court has the discretion to permit the jury to reheаr any portion of the testimony that it requests, absent any special circumstances which might work an injusticе.
Harris v. State,
4. Appellant further asserts that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the shotgun which he used to shoot the victim, claiming that it was obtained as a result of a statement elicited in violation of his Miranda rights.
After he was arrested, Barrett invoked his right to counsel. He was relеased on bond. About ten days later, a detective went to his house and told him not to say anything, but that he needed to retrieve the gun used in the shooting. Barrett told him that it was at his sister’s house and took him to get it. Counsel objected to the introduction into evidence of the gun.
An examination of the record indicates that аppellant did not file a motion to suppress and waited until mid-trial before making a motion to exclude this evidence. Uniform Court Rule 31.1 requires that all motions be filed at or before arraignment unless the trial court extends the filing time.
Van Huynh v. State,
5. The trial court properly sustained а hearsay objection to certain testimony given by appellant’s son and struck his testimony.
OCGA § 24-3-1 (b) provides that hearsay evidence “is admitted only in specified cases from necessity.” Appellant contends that the evidence was admissible to impeach the victim’s testimony. To impeach a witness by proоf of a previous contradictory statement, a proper foundation must be laid in accordаnce with the provisions of OCGA § 24-9-83. The proper foundation as to time, place or circumstances surrounding the alleged former statement was not laid when the victim testified, and she was not recalled for questioning and given the opportunity to deny or explain the inconsistent statement.
Smith v. State,
6. The determination of whether a defendant is indigent, and entitled to have counsel appointed to pursue an appеal, lies within the discretion of the trial court, and this determination is not subject to review.
Penland v. State,
Judgment affirmed.