Elroy Davis appeals his conviction for statutory rape of his daughter. He contends the trial court erred by tainting the jury panel by unfairly blaming his counsel for the length of jury selection, by denying his motion for complete recording of the trial, by refusing to allow scientific tests to be conducted on a semen sample, by allowing the prosecution to bolster the victim’s testimony, and by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of medical reports and testimony in violation of OCGA §§ 17-7-210 and 17-7-211. He also contends the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for statutory rape. Hеld:
1. Davis’ argument on the insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for statutory rape contends thаt the victim’s testimony was not corroborated sufficiently as only the victim’s testimony identified him as the perpetrator. Seе OCGA § 16-6-3 (a). This argument is without merit. “Corroborating identification evidence is not necessary in statutory rape prosecutions. The quantum of corroboration needed in a rape case is not that which is in itself sufficient to convict the aсcused, but only that amount of independent evidence which tends to prove that the incident occurred as allеged. Slight circumstances may be sufficient corroboration, and ultimately the question of corroboration is one for the jury.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Byars v. State,
2. Davis contends the trial court prеjudiced the jury against him by instructing the jurors that defendant had invoked his right and that they should not be prejudiced against defendant because it would take longer to select a jury. According to the trial judge, he stated: “Do not let it prejudice your minds agаinst the defendant in any way whatsoever.” During the trial, Davis based his challenge to the array on the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments tо the United States Constitution. Now he contends the trial judge’s remark violated OCGA § 17-8-57. The record shows that Davis’ election to question all the jurors on the panel before starting to strike a jury (OCGA § 15-12-133) prompted the trial court’s comments to the jury.
Although we аgree that “ ‘[j]urors are generally unfamiliar with
*658
the mechanics of a trial, civil or criminal, and may enter upon their duties with little or no idea as to how an actual trial is conducted,’ ”
(Edmonds v. State,
3. Davis asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion tо record the entire trial. This enumeration is without merit. Our law only requires such recordation when the State seeks the deаth penalty. OCGA § 17-8-5;
State v. Graham,
4. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to conduct scientific tests of certain itеms of evidence. (The record shows, however, that at the time in question the motion actually made was for a cоntinuance to conduct the tests.) The transcript reveals that a sheet upon which the sexual assault of the victim tоok place was inadvertently placed in the evidence room rather than being sent to the crime lab, and thаt the rape kit was not analyzed until shortly before the trial. Thus, when Davis moved for a continuance for a test of thesе objects, the trial court denied the request as untimely. As Davis concedes the police and prosecution were not guilty of bad faith in their handling of this evidence, there was no error arising from the handling of the evidence.
Spaulding v. State,
5. Davis contends that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecuting attorney to bolster the testimony of the complaining witness by vouching for the victim’s testimony by sitting close to the victim before the jury and touching the victim. Although we agreе with the observations made by the Supreme Court of Alabama in
Sexton v. State,
529 S2d 1041, 1044 (Ala. 1988), that “[i]f, because of age, timidity or frailty, a witness requires aid in order to testify, that aid should be rendered by someone other than the prosecuting attorney,”
*659
in this instance we find no rеversible error. It is not error for a child witness to sit in a small chair in front of the jury
(Boatright v. State,
6. Finally, Davis contends the trial court erred by allowing testimony concerning the presence of semen on the rape kit slides because the reports were not provided him ten days before trial in accordance with OCGA § 17-7-211. There was no error. The record shows that therе were no scientific reports to be provided ten days before trial and that the prosecution advised him of the results of the test when learned. “Since there was no written report available before the trial, the report itself was not excludable under the statute.
Boyce v. State,
Judgment affirmed.