Following a jury trial, Darrell Demand Smith was convicted of a single count each of trafficking in cocaine1 and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.2 He now appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence: 1 an undercover videotape made by a now-deceased police informant; 2 hearsay testimony regarding statements made by that informant; and 3 the police booking photographs of Smith, taken after he was arrested. Smith further asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Culver v. State, 3 the evidence shows that in December 2005, the Douglasville Police Department was conducting an ongoing investigation into the sale of crack cocaine from a specific room Room 103 at a local motel. As part of that investigation, narcotics detectives met with an informant on December 10, 2005 and sent him to the motel room to attempt a purchase of cocaine. The detectives equipped the informant with both an audio transmitter and a small video camera; the audio transmitter allowed the detectives to hear the informant and his conversations, while the camera recorded both audio and video of the informant’s negotiation and purchase of crack cocaine. Police saw the informant enter the hotel room and heard him, via the audio transmitter, attempt to negotiate the purchase of cocaine. They heard Smith’s co-defendant tell the informant he would have to wait, because they were “cooking” the cocaine i.e., they were preparing the crack. The officers then saw the informant exit the motel room and return to his car, where he waited for a few minutes before returning to Room 103, where officers heard him successfully purchase $20 worth of crack cocaine.
As the informant and his driver left the hotel parking lot, they were followed by the narcotics detectives. All parties drove directly to police headquarters, where they met. At that meeting, the informant provided the detectives with the cocaine he had purchased and the detectives removed the audio transmitter, the video camera, and the tape from the informant’s person.
