are now the exclusive source of evidence law, room remains for Georgia courts to continue long-standing practices that are not affected by the rules, or that leave open room for judicial interpretation. Indeed, for any given common law approach, a potential question exists as to how specifically it must conflict with the revised rules to avoid being overruled.”). 21 Leonard v. State, 275 Ga. App. 667, 668 (621 SE2d 599) (2005) (punctuation omitted); accord Bailey v. State, 261 Ga. App. 291, 292 (2) (582 SE2d 487) (2003). 22 Leonard, 275 Ga. App. at 668 (punctuation omitted); accord Bailey, 261 Ga. App. at 292 (2). 23 Leonard, 275 Ga. App. at 668-69 (punctuation omitted); accord Bailey, 261 Ga. App. at 292 (2). 24 Groves v. State, 162 Ga. 161, 162 (132 SE 769) (1926) (p 551) (1912) (<HOLDING>). 31 State v. Freeman, 264 Ga. 276, 277-78 (444
holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed holding that our use of the subjunctive in mentioning an argument in passing suggests that we knew that we were not addressing and that we could not address that argument holding that verdict reading that we the jury find the defendant guilty of uttering and publishing said deed we further recommend to treat as a misdemeanor was an acquittal holding the district courts noconsent finding was not clearly erroneous because the individual felt she was under arrest and had to submit to the patdown search in part based on the officers saying this is what we do we talk to people we search peoples bags we pat search people this is what we do everyday holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury that there had to be a substantial similarity between the indictment and the proof in order to find the defendant guilty