witness list rule in Georgia

2006“The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview.” Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646, 653 (7) ( 501 SE2d 219 ) (1998).

2006“The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview.” Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646, 653 (7) ( 501 SE2d 219 ) (1998).

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2011We are starting the case.” Neither defendant made any further objection. “ ‘The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview.’ [Cit.]” Rose v. State, 275 Ga. 214, 217 (3) ( 563 SE2d 865 ) (2002).

2011We are starting the case.” Neither defendant made any further objection. “ ‘The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview.’ [Cit.]” Rose v. State, 275 Ga. 214, 217 (3) ( 563 SE2d 865 ) (2002).

2026Accord Brannon, 298 Ga. at 609(5). 22 See Moore v. State, 305 Ga. 251 , 253–54(2) ( 824 SE2d 377 ) (2019) (noting that the trial court’s decision to admit video surveillance footage is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Thompson v. State, 372 Ga. App. 335 , 338(1) ( 904 SE2d 409 ) (2024) (same). 12 Here, during Watkins’s testimony, the State’s prosecutor asked him if the sawmill parking lot had security cameras.

2026Accord Brannon, 298 Ga. at 609(5). 22 See Moore v. State, 305 Ga. 251 , 253–54(2) ( 824 SE2d 377 ) (2019) (noting that the trial court’s decision to admit video surveillance footage is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Thompson v. State, 372 Ga. App. 335 , 338(1) ( 904 SE2d 409 ) (2024) (same). 12 Here, during Watkins’s testimony, the State’s prosecutor asked him if the sawmill parking lot had security cameras.

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2026OCGA § 24-9-923(c) governs the method for “admitting video recordings created by unmanned cameras such as the surveillance video admitted by the trial court in this case,”19 providing: 18 See Bogan, 270 Ga. App. 164–65(2) (concluding that although the State inadvertently omitted a witness from the witness list, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness’s testimony given that he had been identified at an earlier hearing); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to the de

2012Norris, supra at 155 (Citation omitted).

2008Further, absent a showing of prejudice and bad faith, “an interview of the witness is the remedy for failure to comply with the requirement that a witness must be identified prior to trial.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Arnold v. State, 253 Ga. App. at 310 (2).

2004And the trial court may allow an exception to the rule “where the trial judge in his discretion determine [s] that the defendant can be protected by some other form of relief.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Boone v. State, 250 Ga. App. 133, 139 (9) ( 549 SE2d 713 ) (2001).

2004And the trial court may allow an exception to the rule “where the trial judge in his discretion determine [s] that the defendant can be protected by some other form of relief.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Boone v. State, 250 Ga. App. 133, 139 (9) ( 549 SE2d 713 ) (2001).

2002See also McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) *311 (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to defendant in discovery provided to him by the State, the purpose of the witness list rule is served and the court may allow the State to call the witness even though he or she was not listed on the State’s formal witness list.”). 20 See Johnson v. State, 247 Ga. App. 660, 665-666 (6) ( 544 SE2d 496 ) (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 34 (1) ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001).

2002See also McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) *311 (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to defendant in discovery provided to him by the State, the purpose of the witness list rule is served and the court may allow the State to call the witness even though he or she was not listed on the State’s formal witness list.”). 20 See Johnson v. State, 247 Ga. App. 660, 665-666 (6) ( 544 SE2d 496 ) (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 34 (1) ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001).

2002See also McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) *311 (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to defendant in discovery provided to him by the State, the purpose of the witness list rule is served and the court may allow the State to call the witness even though he or she was not listed on the State’s formal witness list.”). 20 See Johnson v. State, 247 Ga. App. 660, 665-666 (6) ( 544 SE2d 496 ) (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 34 (1) ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001).

2002See also McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 29 (2) ( 516 SE2d 818 ) (1999) *311 (“When the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to defendant in discovery provided to him by the State, the purpose of the witness list rule is served and the court may allow the State to call the witness even though he or she was not listed on the State’s formal witness list.”). 20 See Johnson v. State, 247 Ga. App. 660, 665-666 (6) ( 544 SE2d 496 ) (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 34 (1) ( 549 SE2d 107 ) (2001).

1999Gossett v. State, 199 Ga. App. 286, 288 (2) ( 404 SE2d 595 ) (1991); see State v. McBride, 258 Ga. 321 ( 368 SE2d 758 ) (1988); Redmond v. State, 252 Ga. 142 (2) ( 312 SE2d 315 ) (1984).

1999Gossett v. State, 199 Ga. App. 286, 288 (2) ( 404 SE2d 595 ) (1991); see State v. McBride, 258 Ga. 321 ( 368 SE2d 758 ) (1988); Redmond v. State, 252 Ga. 142 (2) ( 312 SE2d 315 ) (1984).

1999The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview. [Cit.] See generally White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 109 (3) ( 317 SE2d 196 ) (1984).

1999The witness list rule is designed to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by a witness that the defendant has not had an opportunity to interview. [Cit.] See generally White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 109 (3) ( 317 SE2d 196 ) (1984).

1999Gossett v. State, 199 Ga. App. 286, 288 (2) ( 404 SE2d 595 ) (1991); see State v. McBride, 258 Ga. 321 ( 368 SE2d 758 ) (1988); Redmond v. State, 252 Ga. 142 (2) ( 312 SE2d 315 ) (1984).

1999Gossett v. State, 199 Ga. App. 286, 288 (2) ( 404 SE2d 595 ) (1991); see State v. McBride, 258 Ga. 321 ( 368 SE2d 758 ) (1988); Redmond v. State, 252 Ga. 142 (2) ( 312 SE2d 315 ) (1984).