O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-16-22 (2019)

Right of defendant to copy of statement given while in police custody; failure of prosecution to comply; evidence discovered after filing of request

✓ 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

(a) At least ten days prior to the trial of the case, the defendant shall be entitled to have a copy of any statement given by the defendant while in police custody. The defendant may make such request for a copy of any such statement, in writing, within any reasonable period of time prior to trial. (b) If the defendant’s statement is oral or partially oral, the prosecution shall furnish, in writing, all relevant and material portions of the defendant’s statement. (c) Failure of the prosecution to comply with a defendant’s timely written request for a copy of such defendant’s statement, whether written or oral, shall result in such statement being excluded and suppressed from the prosecution’s use in its case-in-chief or in rebuttal. (d) If the defendant’s statement is oral, no relevant and material, incriminating or inculpatory, portion of the statement of the defendant may be used against the defendant unless it has been previously furnished to the defendant, if a timely written request for a copy of the statement has been made by the defendant. (e) This Code section shall not apply to evidence discovered after a request has been filed. If a request has been filed, such evidence shall be produced as soon as possible after it has been discovered.

History

Code 1981, § 17-16-22, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1895, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose. - Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-22 is to avoid surprises. Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998). Roadside questioning not custodial statements. - Statements that the defendant challenged were made during roadside questioning after a routine traffic stop before the defendant was formally arrested; therefore, the roadside statements were not custodial statements subject to the production requirements in O.C.G.A. § 17-16-22(a) and (b). Daugherty v. State, 248 Ga. App. 181, 546 S.E.2d 310 (2001). Application of exclusionary rule. - Exclusionary rule of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-22 applies only if the state fails altogether to furnish discovery material, and thus, if material is furnished late, the proper rem-

edy 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). Evidence otherwise admitted without objection. - Even if the state failed to reply to a request for a copy of a uniform traffic citation showing the defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test, any error in admitting the uniform traffic citation into evidence was harmless as the arresting officer testified without objection that the defendant refused to submit to a breath test and the defendant admitted at trial that the defendant refused to take a breath test. Johnson v. State, 234 Ga. App. 58, 506 S.E.2d 212 (1998). Cited in State v. Banks, 348 Ga. App. 876, 825 S.E.2d 399 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1998–2019 · leading case: Johnson v. State, 506 S.E.2d 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. State, 506 S.E.2d 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “He argues that under OCGA § 17-16-22, providing discovery rights in misdemeanor cases, he requested a copy of the uniform traffic citation showing his refusal to submit to the state-administered breath test.”
Mowery v. State, 507 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “” OCGA §§ 17-16-22 and 17-16-23 both require that the requests for copies of custodial statements and scientific reports be made “within any reasonable period of time prior to trial.”
Forsman v. State, 521 S.E.2d 410 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Such motion was based on the fact that the State had failed to provide Forsman’s custodial statement to the defense pursuant to his OCGA § 17-16-22 and Brady 5 motions for discovery.”
Park v. State, 495 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “19 Park contends that OCGA § 17-16-22 of the new discovery statute requires this disclosure on demand.”
Downs v. State, 524 S.E.2d 786 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Prior to trial, Downs had requested the State’s records of statements by him pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-22. The State failed to provide any summary of the oral remarks made by Downs while in the police cruiser.”
Daugherty v. State, 546 S.E.2d 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “In his first enumeration of error, Daugherty argues that with the exception of his statement that he had too much to drink, the other statements he made to the deputies at the scene were not produced to his counsel pursuant to his OCGA § 17-16-22 demand; thus, the statements…”
State v. Whitney S. Freeman (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Without the consent of the defendant, no witness shall be permitted to testify for the state whose name does not appear on the list of witnesses as furnished to the defendant unless the prosecuting attorney shall state that the evidence sought to be presented is newly discovered…”
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.