The trial court overruled the objection, and appellant now contends that the trial court erred in doing so. Assuming that appellant properly preserved the issue for appeal by not objecting until the third question was asked, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling. Because appellant’s defense was that Payton Grant killed the victim after having sex with appellant and later planted the bloody shirt in appellant’s home and the victim’s driver’s license in his garbage, it was not improper for the prosecutor to question Investigator Morgan regarding the failure of appellant, who agreed to and did speak with the police, to mention that the red shirt was not his and that someone else put it in his home with the blood on it. See Seabolt v. Norris, 298 Ga. 583, 587 (783 SE2d 913) (2016) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 785, 788 (741 SE2d
holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial holding that an applicant who convincingly demonstrated that she could not rely on the authorities to protect her from her fathers abuse and that by turning to governmental authorities for help her circumstances may well have worsened was not required to report private persecution to government authorities to qualify for asylum holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial