Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 17-16-10 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 16. Discovery, 17-16-1 through 17-16-23.

ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS; FELONY CASES

17-16-10. Material or information already furnished; who may be called as witness.

The defendant need not include in materials and information furnished to the prosecuting attorney under this article any material or information which the prosecuting attorney has already furnished to the defendant under this article. The prosecuting attorney need not include in materials and information furnished to the defendant under this article any material or information which that defendant has already furnished to the prosecuting attorney under this article. Either party may call as a witness any person listed on either the prosecuting attorney's or defendant's witness list.

(Code 1981, §17-16-10, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 1250, § 2.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Trial court erred in excluding a witness's testimony based solely on the fact that the witness was not listed on the defendant's witness list because the defendant was entitled to rely on the state's supplemental witness list as a document furnished to the defendant pursuant to the Criminal Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-10, and was not required to also list the witness on the defendant's own witness list in order to call the witness as a witness at trial; when the trial court excluded the testimony, it was not aware that the witness had been identified by the state on its supplemental witness list, but when ruling on the state's objection to the witness because of an alleged discovery violation on the part of the defense. The trial court did not require the state to make the requisite showing of prejudice and bad faith on the part of the defendant as required by the Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-6, and the state could not have shown prejudice or bad faith on the part of the defendant because the state admitted that it had the witness's report and had researched the validity of the specific tests utilized by the witness, and the error was not harmless since it could not be said that the testimony would not have made a difference in the outcome of what the trial court described as a "very, very close case." Webb v. State, 300 Ga. App. 611, 685 S.E.2d 498 (2009).

Cited in Jackson v. State, 233 Ga. App. 568, 504 S.E.2d 505 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 1192 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1624 et seq.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 17-16-10 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 1

Moss v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-03-25

Citation: 561 S.E.2d 382, 275 Ga. 96, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 904, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 245

Snippet: applicable discovery statutes, see OCGA §§ 17-16-1 to 17-16-10, and that, to cure this failure, the trial court