(“Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment shall be admissible in evidence”). The hearsay exception provided for in former OCGA § 24-3-4 is now essentially recognized in OCGA § 24-8-803 (4) (“Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”). 20 See, e.g., Miller v. State, 296 Ga. 9, 12 (4) (b) (764 SE2d 823) (2014) (<HOLDING>); Maurer v. State, 320 Ga. App. 585, 592 (6)
holding that any deficiency in counsels failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony that repeated statement of witness regarding identity of murder perpetrator did not prejudice defendant and thus was not ineffective assistance when testimony was cumulative of other eyewitness testimony holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence