☢ test - Í

criminal discovery statute requires the prosecution to permit the defense to inspect and copy documents, photographs, recordings, and other materials that are ‘intended for use ... as evidence in the prosecutor's case-in- chief or rebuttal at the trial.’ OCGA § 17–16–4(a)(3)(A). The State did not seek to admit at trial a recording or transcript of Ms. Mendez's 911 call or any undisclosed autopsy photographs, and thus, assuming such materials exist, the State was not statutorily required to provide them to the defense.” Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 576, 722 S.E.2d 853 (February 27, 2012). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no mistrial required for failure to produce witness statement in these circumstances: “Appellant had other, audiotaped statements of the witness and had interviewed the witness and obtained an affidavit from him before trial, and the trial court granted Appellant an overnight continuance to give him the opportunity to review the additional statement before cross-examining the witness. The court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning this remedy. Indeed, the record supports the court's ruling that the State did not act in bad faith with regard to disclosure of the witness statement, and Appellant does not argue that it did.” Mauldin v. State, 313 Ga.App. 228, 721 S.E.2d 182 (December 7, 2011). Child molestation convictions affirmed; defendant waived any error in State’s failure to provide victim’s prior inconsistent statement in discovery by failing to object when the statement was raised at trial. “Further, defense counsel did not raise an objection before beginning his cross-examination of the victim. During cross-examination, defense counsel repeatedly questioned the victim about the inconsistencies in her testimony, as well as those in her statements to her mother, the police, the DFCS employee, the physician, etc. Then, after defense counsel had cross-examined the victim about the sexual intercourse incident in Mauldin's car, counsel moved for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to provide the victim's statement before trial. According to defense counsel, if he had had the information at that time, he ‘probably’ would have mentioned it during his opening statement to further enforce Mauldin's defense that the victim was a habitual liar whom the jury should not believe. After hearing argument, the court denied Mauldin's motion for mistrial, and defense counsel continued his cross-examination of the victim. Based on these circumstances, we conclude that Mauldin has waived this alleged error due to trial counsel's failure to make a contemporaneous objection and to seek a mistrial at the time the State first elicited the victim's testimony about the second incident of sexual intercourse. Boyd v. State, 275 Ga. 237, 238(3) (564 S.E.2d 185) (2002); Butler v. State, 273 Ga. 380, 382–383(5) (541 S.E.2d 653) (2001). Even if that were not the case, Mauldin is unable to show that his defense was harmed See Jones v. State, 276 Ga.App. 728, 729 (624 S.E.2d 275) (2005) (‘[T]he failure to grant a mistrial based on a discovery violation committed by the State constitutes reversible error only if the violation harmed the defendant's ability to prepare and present his defense or otherwise deprived him of a fair trial.’ ) (citations omitted).” Fields v. State, 310 Ga.App. 455, 714 S.E.2d 45 (July 1, 2011). Conviction for theft by deception affirmed; no discovery violation where “the State disclosed all of its evidence to Fields and provided him with the indictment and witness list during a probation revocation hearing 24 days prior to trial, and he was informed at the revocation hearing that the evidence was the same as it would be at his impending criminal trial.” Vaughn v. State, 307 Ga.App. 754, 706 S.E.2d 137 (February 9, 2011). Physical precedent only. Child molestation and sexual exploitation convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion where trial court prohibited defense from calling undisclosed witness. “Defense counsel said she knew about the witness the week before but did not inform the State until just before the jury was being brought in on the morning of trial.” “Vaughn cites to OCGA § 17-16-6 which provides: ‘If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that the [defendant] has failed to comply with the requirements of this article, the court may order the [defendant] to permit the discovery or inspection, interview of the witness, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the [defendant] from introducing the evidence not disclosed or presenting the witness not disclosed, or may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.’” “The requirement of prejudice to the State is satisfied because the State had no notice of the witness or the videotape until the day of trial and thus had no opportunity to interview the witness or view and investigate the videotape. Acey [ v. State, 281 Ga.App. 197, 200 (635 S.E.2d 814) (2006)]. The requirement of bad faith is satisfied because nothing in the record indicates that Vaughn did not know of this witness or videotape until the day of trial. Id. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of this witness.” Trial court first asked if defense wanted a continuance, but defense declined. Witness here was mother of victims. Stinski v. State, 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854 (March 1, 2010). 1. At defendant’s capital murder trial, trial court properly denied defendant’s “motions seeking information related to the grand jury proceedings against him. The State complied with its relevant duties under the Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, and Stinski has failed to show that he was