O.C.G.A.
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.
The provisions of this article shall apply only to misdemeanor cases or to felony cases docketed, indicted, or in which an accusation was returned prior to January 1, 1995, if the prosecuting attorney and the defendant do not agree in writing that the provisions of Article 1 of this chapter shall apply.
History
Code 1981, § 17-16-20, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1895, § 4; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1250, § 3.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For note on the 1995 amendment of this Code section, see 12 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 144 (1995).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Discovery applicable to misdemeanor cases. - Discovery provisions applicable to misdemeanor prosecutions are not the same as those applicable to felony prosecutions, and discovery requirements applicable to misdemeanors did not require the state to produce the items that the defendant claimed should have been produced, including police reports, copies of 9-1-1 recordings, crime scene photographs, the victim’s criminal history, witness statements and repair records for the property the defendant damaged; the defendant admitted that the state provided the defendant with a copy
of the accusation, as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21, as well as the state’s witness list and a copy of the defendant’s criminal record, so under the circumstances, the state complied with the state’s discovery obligations. Brooks v. State, 267 Ga. App. 663, 600 S.E.2d 737 (2004). Witnesses’ statements are not required to be made available by prosecutors for discovery by the defendant in a misdemeanor case. Brown v. State, 246 Ga. App. 517, 541 S.E.2d 112 (2000). Cited in Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460, 535 S.E.2d 830 (2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case:
In re Whittle, 793 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
In re Whittle, 793 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “But see OCGA § 17-16-20 (providing that Article 2 to Chapter 16 of Title 17 is applicable to, inter alia, “felony cases docketed, indicted, or in which an accusation was returned prior to January 1, 1995, if the prosecuting attorney and the defendant do not agree in writing that…”
Arnold v. State, 560 S.E.2d 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 17-16-20. 14 OCGA § 17-16-6. See also Malaguti v.”
Bazemore v. State, 535 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “See OCGA § 17-16-20 et seq. The discovery act repealed OCGA § 17-7-211, which required disclosure of written scientific reports but reenacted its provisions to apply to misdemeanor cases.”
Brown v. State, 541 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “666 ( 352 SE2d 570 ) (1987); OCGA § 17-16-20 et seq. 23 Walter, supra at 668 .”
Christian v. State, 536 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “On the day of trial, Christian sought a ten-day continuance because the State had not complied with the misdemeanor discovery statute, OCGA § 17-16-20 et seq. Specifically, Christian complained that the State had failed to provide a videotape and the field sobriety evaluation…”
Park v. State, 495 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “20 OCGA § 17-16-20. 21 Bevil v. State, 220 Ga.”
McLarty v. State, 516 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-16-20. Bentley relies on the “newly-discovered witness” showing required by OCGA § 17-7-110, which statute was repealed as of January 1, 1995.”
Brooks v. State, 600 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “3 See OCGA § 17-16-20 et seq.; see also Brown, supra at 521 (6) (“Georgia law does not require prosecutors to make their witnesses’ statements available for discovery by the defendant in a misdemeanor case.”
The State v. Echols., 819 S.E.2d 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 17-16-20 to 17-16-23 ; compare OCGA § 17-16-7 (requiring State to provide witness statements in felony cases).”
Bowen v. State, 516 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In misdemeanor cases, like the case before us, the state is obligated to comply only with the discovery requirements set forth in OCGA §§ 17-16-20 through 17-16-23. Bowen has not shown that the state failed to comply with those requirements.”
In Re: Clay Whittle, Sheriff (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “But see OCGA § 17-16-20 (providing that Article 2 to Chapter 16 of Title 17 is applicable to, inter alia, “felony cases docketed, indicted, or in which an accusation was returned prior to January 1, 1995, if the prosecuting attorney and the defendant do not agree in writing that…”
David Gaines Gilmore v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “”26 In misdemeanor cases, the State is obligated to comply only with the discovery requirements set forth in OCGA § 17-16-20 et seq. “The discovery provisions applicable to misdemeanor prosecutions are not the same as those applicable to felony prosecutions.”
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.