☢ test - Í

Raymond v. State, 322 Ga.App. 404, 745 S.E.2d 689 (June 26, 2013). Theft by taking convictions affirmed; trial court properly found no discovery violation where State produced documents to defendant’s first counsel, although defendant’s third (trial) counsel hadn’t seen them. Lewis v. State, 293 Ga. 110, 744 S.E.2d 21 (June 3, 2013). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no discovery violation where State failed to produce witness statements, not reduced to writing. “The record shows Brower was available to the parties for interview through his attorney prior to trial. The testimony Brower provided at trial had not been reduced to a writing or otherwise recorded, but rather had been revealed during an interview the State conducted for the purposes of trial preparation. Thus, there was nothing tangible for the State to produce during discovery. As such, there was no discovery violation that would warrant any sanction, including a mistrial. The trial court acted in keeping with the dictates of OCGA § 17–16–6 when it remedied any lapse of information or perceived lack of fairness by allowing Lewis and Clark to interview Brower about this issue.” Accord, Lane v. State , 324 Ga.App. 303, 750 S.E.2d 381 (October 23, 2013) (State’s discovery “obligations are not triggered when a witness makes an oral statement as in this case.”). Heywood v. State, 292 Ga. 771, 743 S.E.2d 12 (March 28, 2013). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; contrary to State’s argument, it was required to produce even oral reports from expert in discovery pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-4(a)(4), as amended by Ga. L. 2003 , p. 154, § 5; but “Appellant has pointed to nothing in the record to prove that MacGillivary ever made such an oral report before he testified. In the absence of such a showing, Appellant cannot establish a violation even of the amended OCGA § 17–16–4(a)(4).” Accord, Valentine (September 9, 2013), above. Haithcock v. State, 320 Ga.App. 886, 740 S.E.2d 806 (March 28, 2013). Child molestation conviction affirmed. After State’s late provision of expert’s report, defendant waived discovery violation by declining trial court’s offer of continuance. “ Thompson v. State, 262 Ga.App. 17, 21(4), 585 S.E.2d 125 (2003) (defendants' failure to request a continuance to cure any prejudice which may have resulted from the State's failure to comply with requirements of reciprocal discovery waived their right to assert error on appeal).” Wise v. State, 321 Ga.App. 39, 740 S.E.2d 850 (March 28, 2013). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute affirmed; trial court properly declined to enforce defendant’s subpoena for officer’s personnel file, absent some showing of need or relevance. “‘When the defense seeks to discover the personnel files of an investigating law enforcement officer, some showing of need must be made. The need which must be shown is also subject to the general rules of evidence, including a showing of relevancy.’ (Citations omitted.) Lopez v. State, 267 Ga.App. 178, 182(5), 598 S.E.2d 898 (2004). Contrary to Wise's contention, the trial court directed that if Wise provided some evidence of the officer's wrongdoing, he could ‘recall [the officer] ... If you've got some legitimate evidence that there is an internal affairs record against him.’ The trial court ruled that because Wise had not substantiated his allegation as to any complaints against the officer, the officer's file was irrelevant. It further directed that if Wise contended that he made a complaint against the officer, then he could ‘certainly take the stand and testify to that.’ ‘[Wise] does not point to any specific report contained in the personnel files which casts doubt upon any officer's credibility. The officer's file can have no relevance to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case and the trial judge was absolutely correct to deny defendant access to it, the more so because it was to be a fishing expedition and defendant did not know what he hoped to find therein, except his own complaint against the officer.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. State, 182 Ga.App. 494, 496(1), 356 S.E.2d 216 (1987). ‘“His general assertion that something in the file[s] might be exculpatory is insufficient to show error. [Cit.]’ Pollard v. State, 260 Ga.App. 540, 545(4), 580 S.E.2d 337 (2003).” Hodges v. State, 319 Ga.App. 657, 738 S.E.2d 111 (February 5, 2013). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; no reversal based on failure to provide expert’s opinion testimony pursuant to discovery, absent showing of bad faith and prejudice. “‘[T]o obtain the exclusion of evidence for the State's alleged discovery violation, [Hodges] must show both prejudice and bad faith.’ Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822, 841(5)(b), 725 S.E.2d 260 (2012); see also Leger v. State, 291 Ga. 584, 587(2), 732 S.E.2d 53 (2012). In this case, Hodges showed neither. Further, he did not seek a recess or continuance or request any other remedy authorized by OCGA § 17–16–6, except to object to the witness being qualified as an expert and giving opinion evidence.” Accord, Falay v. State , 320 Ga.App. 781, 740 S.E.2d 738 (March 26, 2013). Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512, 731 S.E.2d 658 (September 10, 2012). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no discovery violation by State as to evidence not offered at trial. Defendant “contends that the prosecutor should have provided him with a recording and transcript of [witness] Ms. Mendez's 911 call, as well as additional photographs of the victim by the medical examiner, even though none of this material was offered into evidence at trial.[fn] Georgia's