...Although the 24-page transcript of the defendant's pretrial statement originally furnished the defendant contained some inaccuracies (which were corrected in a supplemental transcript furnished the defendant during the trial) it was sufficiently complete to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-210....

...as a result of prejudice and other arbitrary factors; Todd's claims that the trial court erred in denying Todd's motion for funds for expert assistance, except as it relates to the Brooks issue; Todd's claim that the State failed to comply with OCGA § 17-7-210; Todd's claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of crimes committed in Alabama; Todd's claims regarding the admission into evidence of allegedly gruesome photographs; Todd's claims regarding a motion for mistrial that he ma...

...423, 424(3), 360 S.E.2d 716 (1987). 8. Thomas enumerates as error the trial court's admission of the statement he made following his arrest for kidnapping. *789 Thomas' contention that his statement was inadmissible because of the State's non-compliance with former OCGA § 17-7-210 was not raised in the trial court and will not, therefore, be considered on appeal....

...A police officer testified during the penalty phase that during questioning Mobley had denied committing the armed robbery and murder. Mobley objected to the admission of this testimony because it had not been furnished to the defense as required by OCGA § 17-7-210....

...On the contrary, the state opened its files to the defendant. Cf. Reed v. State, 249 Ga. 52 (3) (287 SE2d 205) (1982). 9. Potts objected to the introduction of statements made by him as he was attempting to break out of jail, relying on the notice provisions of OCGA § 17-7-210....

...ts and granted the defendant's request to instruct the jury to disregard the statements. Potts made no motion for mistrial after the curative instructions were given. Pretermitting whether the statements at issue here come within the purview of OCGA § 17-7-210, since the trial court granted all the relief Potts asked for at trial, he now has nothing to complain about....

...efendant. OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (3). See Division 16, infra, and the Appendix to this opinion. 9. Hittson argues that because the state provided him with a copy of his statements to the state psychologist less than ten days prior to trial, under OCGA § 17-7-210 (c), the trial court should not have permitted the psychologist to testify to Hittson's characterization of the victim....

...psychologists had made following their examination of appellant. Appellant argues this testimony should not have been admitted because the state failed to supply her with copies of this scientific report ten days prior to trial as required by OCGA §§ 17-7-210; 17-7-211....

...ncidentally put Gadson’s character into evidence. See Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 495 (422 SE2d 188) (1992). 4. Gadson gave two tape-recorded statements to police. The state *282timely provided Gadson with transcripts of those statements, OCGA § 17-7-210 (b), and allowed Gadson’s attorney to listen to the original audio tapes before trial. We find that the trial court did not err in admitting the statements into evidence as “[t]his procedure complies fully with OCGA § 17-7-210 (b).” Hardin v....

...convicted and punished for that crime upon proof that he was a party to the crime. 2. Defendant Lyons argues that the trial court erred in admitting his incustody statement in evidence because the state failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-210 in that it did not provide him with a copy of all relevant and material portions of his statement ten days prior to trial....

...The record shows that Lyons filed a "motion for production of statement of defendant" in which he asks for "any oral or written statement made by the Defendant pursuant to the investigation giving rise to the indictment." This request was insufficient to alert the state that Lyons was seeking discovery pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-210 in that it neither referred to the code section in question nor invoked the ten-day *445 time limitation....

...2d 560) (1979); Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89, 90 (263 S.E.2d 131) (1980). 2. In his first enumeration of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in allowing his tape-recorded custodial statement into evidence. He claims the state failed to comply with the requisites of O.C.G.A. § 17-7-210 by giving him an inadequate summary ten days before trial and then surprising him with a transcript of his taped statement the day of the trial. O.C.G.A. § 17-7-210 provides in pertinent part: (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 previous...

...t him... it became a slight struggle, he [Marshall] backed up, pulled a gun and fired." Defense counsel moved for mistrial on ground that he had not been furnished with the contents of that statement prior to trial, pursuant to his demand under OCGA § 17-7-210(b)....

...aiver of his Miranda rights, and there was no assertion that he invoked his right to counsel, we find no harmful error in the trial court's failure to make findings in this regard. Compare Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101, 326 S.E.2d 748 (1985). [3] OCGA § 17-7-210 was repealed by Ga.L.1994, p....

...Defendant Broomall contends the trial court erred in allowing an insurance agent to testify to a statement defendant Broomall made to her over the telephone while in custody on October 20, 1987. She contends the statements were inadmissible because the state failed to comply with OCGA § 17-7-210 (a), requiring the prosecution to serve *222 the defendant with copies of her in-custody statements at least ten days before trial....

...When the prosecution reinterviewed the agent a few days prior to trial, however, defendant Broomall's statement was first revealed. Defense counsel were immediately notified by telephone of the incriminating statement and subsequently served in writing in accordance with the statute. OCGA § 17-7-210....

...When an objection was raised to this evidence at the trial, the trial court decided the evidence was newly discovered and was revealed as soon as practicable after its discovery. Defense counsel were then afforded an opportunity to question the witness outside the presence of the jury. OCGA § 17-7-210 (e). Pretermitting whether this comment qualifies as an in-custody statement subject to the statute, the trial court's decision that it was governed by OCGA § 17-7-210 (e) was not erroneous....

...The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder, armed robbery and theft by taking. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2. Citing former OCGA § 17-7-210(e) and contending that the State did not provide a timely copy of appellant's custodial, inculpatory statement made to the inmate of the adjacent cell, appellant complains the trial court erred when it allowed the inmate in the cell next to appellant to testify about the contents of the inculpatory statement. Former OCGA § 17-7-210, repealed by Georgia Laws 1994, p....

...fore trial *719 and which recounted the inculpatory statement purportedly made by appellant. The assistant district attorney received an oral report of the statement ten days before trial and a written report three days before trial. Relying on OCGA § 17-7-210(e), the trial court determined the evidence was produced as soon as possible after its discovery, delayed the start of the trial for several hours so that defense counsel could interview the witness, and authorized additional investigatory funds for the defense. The trial court's decision that OCGA § 17-7-210(e) applied was not erroneous....

...Following a jury trial, Harmon was found guilty on April 4, 1989. Harmon filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 1989. The court reporter certified the transcript on June 26, 1989. The case was docketed in this court on July 13, 1989. The case was submitted on briefs on August 25, 1989. [2] OCGA § 17-7-210 (a) provides that a defendant is entitled, upon written request, to receive a copy of "any statement given by him while in police custody." Subsection (b) provides that the prosecution is required to "furnish, in writing, all relevant and...

...Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing an in-custody statement made by him to be admitted in evidence, in that he was not provided with a copy of this statement prior to trial pursuant to his request for copies of any statements made by him while in police custody under OCGA § 17-7-210. OCGA § 17-7-210 provides that at least ten days prior to trial, *745 the defendant is entitled to have a copy of oral and written statements made by him while in police custody, and failure of the prosecution to comply with a timely written request shall result in the statement being excluded and suppressed....

...See Huguley v. State, 253 Ga. 709 (2) (324 SE2d 729) (1985). In any event, since the statement was not incriminating or inculpatory, the failure of the State to give appellant a copy of this statement prior to trial, pursuant to his request under OCGA § 17-7-210, provides no ground for reversal....

...issible for the above reason, as well as because it was double hearsay. 5. (a) Congdon contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to present evidence of a pre-trial statement allegedly made by him, contrary to the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-210....

...Counsel for the defense immediately objected and made a motion for a mistrial. The motion for mistrial was denied. Instead, the trial court ruled that Lt. Hall's statement was inadmissible because it had not been provided to Anderson's counsel before trial. OCGA § 17-7-210. The judge then explained to the jury the rule of evidence contained in OCGA § 17-7-210 which prohibited the statement from being introduced as evidence and gave them the following curative instructions: ......

...He also admitted that he owned the knife that was found at the scene. 1. Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for discovery and production of evidence. Although the court never ruled on the motion, the state did comply with the requirements of OCGA §§ 17-7-210 and 17-7-211 by producing copies of scientific reports and statements made by defendant while in police custody....

...Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the statement. At the Jackson-Denno hearing, one police officer testified that police conducted a “pre-interview” of Smith prior to tape-recording the statement used at trial. The state failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 17-7-210 because it did not furnish in writing the relevant and material parts of the unrecorded statements.5 However, the state did not use any of the “pre-interview” statements at trial....

...an oral statement documented only by an investigator’s notes. In all three statements Clark admitted to stabbing Carter, but only in the statement documented by notes did he describe the particular knife he used. Clark filed a request under OCGA § 17-7-210 for any statements made by him before trial....