O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose. - Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21 is to avoid surprises. Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998). Transcending purpose of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21 was to ensure that an accused was not confronted at trial with testimony against the accused from witnesses whom the accused had not had the opportunity to interview prior to trial; the remedies available for a defendant were a continuance or a mistrial. Hill v. State, 258 Ga. App. 339, 574 S.E.2d 394 (2002). Application of exclusionary rule. - Exclusionary rule of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21 applies only if the state fails altogether to furnish discovery material, and thus, if material is furnished late, the proper remedy may be, in the court’s discretion, a continuance upon proper request by the accused. Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998). 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). Dismissals due to failure to provide discovery. - Trial court’s dismissal without prejudice as to 16 cases dismissed due to the failure of the state to provide discovery was affirmed because the statute of limitations had not expired on the date of the dismissals and the state could re-accuse those defendants. State v. Banks, 348 Ga. App. 876, 825 S.E.2d 399 (2019).

Witnesses could testify although names not on witness list. - Witnesses whose names were not on the accusation furnished to the defendant could testify because the record did not show that the defendant filed a demand for a list of witnesses prior to arraignment. Satterfield v. State, 228 Ga. App. 89, 491 S.E.2d 189 (1997); Lewis v. State, 246 Ga. App. 170, 539 S.E.2d 859 (2000). Although the defendant objected to the testimony of a witness on the ground that the witness had not been identified on the list of witnesses supplied by the state, admission of the testimony was within the court’s discretion based on the state’s claim of surprise. Jackson v. State, 228 Ga. App. 877, 492 S.E.2d 897 (1997). Since the state did not become aware that the witness had knowledge of the defendant’s condition and conduct on the night of the defendant’s arrest until after the trial began, there was no error in allowing the state to call the newly discovered witness. Brice v. State, 242 Ga. App. 163, 529 S.E.2d 178 (2000). Proper identification of witness. - Witness was identified sufficiently to satisfy the requirement that the defendant’s counsel be allowed to question the witness prior to trial since the witness’s name was misspelled but the witness’s correct address was provided. Dill v. State, 235 Ga. App. 265, 508 S.E.2d 739 (1998). List of witnesses required. - Although O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21 obligates the state to provide the defendant with a list of the witnesses on whose testimony the charge against the defendant is founded, it does not obligate the state to list unanticipated impeachment witnesses. Brice v. State, 242 Ga. App. 163, 529 S.E.2d 178 (2000). Failure to file demand for list of witnesses. - When a demand for a list of witnesses was not filed prior to arraignment, the trial court did not err in permitting an unlisted witness to testify over objection. Brown v. State, 246 Ga. App. 517, 541 S.E.2d 112 (2000). Failure to request continuance when witness list not timely provided. - Defendant waived the defen-

dant’s right to assert error in the state’s failure to timely provide an updated witness list by failing to seek a continuance; given defense counsel’s conduct, the fact that the witness list had been furnished to the defendant, and the defendant’s absolute refusal to ask for a continuance, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the witnesses on the updated witness list. Ruff v. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 598 S.E.2d 362 (2004). Failure to request continuance after late delivery of transcript. - Defendant was obliged to request a continuance to cure any prejudice which may have resulted from the state’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Reciprocal Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-21; any claim of denial of the

right to self-representation because the state did not give the defendant a transcript of the probable cause hearing until the day before trial was waived by the defendant’s announcement that the defendant was ready for trial. Clark v. State, 278 Ga. App. 412, 629 S.E.2d 103 (2006). Failure to arraign. - Reversal was required because the state acknowledged that the state could not show that the defendant was formerly arraigned and aware of the charges, and that because the defendant objected to the lack of a formal arraignment, the trial court should have arraigned the defendant. Sapp v. State, 338 Ga. App. 628, 791 S.E.2d 201 (2016). Cited in Phillips v. State, 289 Ga. App. 281, 656 S.E.2d 905 (2008).