O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-16-10 (2019)

Material or information already furnished; who may be called as witness

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

History

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

Annotations

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, § 1169 et seq. 81 Am. Jur. 2d, Witnesses, § 49 et seq.

C.J.S. - 22A C.J.S., Criminal Procedure and Rights of the Accused, § 382 et seq.

ARTICLE 2 MISDEMEANOR CASES

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2018 · leading case: Roderick Jordan v. State, 810 S.E.2d 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roderick Jordan v. State, 810 S.E.2d 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Pointing to OCGA § 17-16-10, Roderick argues that he had an absolute right to call the victim to testify and that he is entitled to a new trial because he was denied that right.”

Webb v. State, 685 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “6 Additionally, OCGA § 17-16-10 states: 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.”

Diaz v. The State., 820 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Additionally, OCGA § 17-16-10 provides, "[t]he 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.”

Jackson v. State, 504 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “We have examined Jackson’s two remaining enumerations of error and find them meritless.”

Hipolito G. Diaz v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “” Additionally, OCGA § 17-16-10 provides, “[t]he 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.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.