A jury convicted Stuart James Mohr of aggravated assault after bar surveillance footage showed him strike a patron, throw objects at her, and repeatedly slam her onto a pool table. After the trial court denied his motion for new trial, Mohr challenged the seizure and search of the bar’s recording system, restrictions on testimony, and trial counsel’s performance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The bar manager had apparent authority to turn over the equipment, making its seizure lawful. Mohr had not raised the statutory 10-day warrant-execution limit below, so the court did not decide his direct suppression claim on that ground. Reviewing his related ineffective-assistance claim, the court concluded the 13-day delay would not have required suppression: officers already lawfully possessed the equipment, Mohr voluntarily gave the password, and the delay was a technical irregularity that did not affect his substantial rights. The court also held harmless the erroneous exclusion of the victim’s prior false-accusation testimony because video evidence established the assault; other testimony claims were waived or unsupported without a proffer. Counsel’s failures to introduce medical records or better advise Mohr about a plea offer showed no prejudice. The aggravated-assault conviction was affirmed.