☢ test - Í

Bass v. State, 288 Ga.App. 690, 655 S.E.2d 303 (November 30, 2007) Physical precedent only. No Brady violation where State failed to disclose pre-trial that prosecution witnesses would be eligible to receive reward money if defendant was convicted. As defendant acknowledges, “ neither witness knew about the possibility of a reward until after they testified at trial. … since the witnesses did not learn of the existence of the reward money until after they testified, we fail to see how the nondisclosure prejudiced [defendant].” Reversed on another issue, Bass v. State , 285 Ga. 89, 674 S.E.2d 255 (January 26, 2009). Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 653 S.E.2d 713 (November 21, 2007). Seeking additional compensation for representation of a capital murder defendant, attorneys subpoenaed information on compensation paid on other capital cases, some still pending, from the Office of the Georgia Capital Defender. The Capital Defender sought to quash the subpoena out of concern that release of the information would disclose trial strategy of the defendants in those cases. Held, trial court erred in denying the motion to quash. “[T]he documents requested here have no bearing on [defendant] Sanders’ guilt or innocence and are entirely irrelevant to Sanders’ criminal case. See, e.g., Owens v. State, 248 Ga. 629, 630 (284 S.E.2d 408) (1981) (relevant evidence is that ‘which logically tends to prove or to disprove a material fact which is at issue in the case’) (citations and punctuation omitted). Moreover, the general funding that other capital defendants may have received has nothing to do with the funding of Sanders’ specific defense. The trial court erred in failing to quash the subpoena. See OCGA § 24-10-22(b)(2) (court may properly quash subpoena that is ‘unreasonable and oppressive’).” Accord, Stetz v. State , 301 Ga.App. 458, 687 S.E.2d 839 (October 28, 2009) (in defendant’s DUI prosecution, trial court properly quashed defendant’s request for discovery of intoxilyzer records, inspection reports, calibration records, tests other than defendant’s, and numerous other documents). Gonzalez v. State, 286 Ga.App. 821, 650 S.E.2d 401 (July 26, 2007). In defendant’s prosecution for aggravated assault and burglary, trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant’s mother had extorted a witness and obstructed officers, although that evidence was not provided in discovery. At trial, defendant raised the defense of justification, claiming that victim had raped defendant’s sister. State then presented evidence that the charge of rape had been dropped against victim, and that defendant’s mother had pled guilty to obstruction and false statements. “Gonzalez’s mother’s indictment and guilty plea are public records, which are accessible to all. See Eaves v. Harris, 258 Ga. 1, 3(2)(a) (364 S.E.2d 854) (1988) ; Fouts v. State, 240 Ga. 39, 45(5) (239 S.E.2d 366) (1977). The Criminal Procedure Discovery Act was not intended to provide sanctions for the failure to provide public information to which Gonzalez already had access. See Kidwell v. State, 264 Ga. 427, 430(5) (444 S.E.2d 789) (1994) (transcripts from the trials of co-defendants are public records and just as accessible to defendants as to the State); Conklin v. State, 254 Ga. 558, 566(3)(a) (331 S.E.2d 532) (1985) (death certificate is a public record which the State does not have to furnish pursuant to the predecessor to the Criminal Procedure Discovery Act). See also Eaves, supra, 258 Ga. at 3(2)(a); Fouts, supra, 240 Ga. at 45(5).” Winfrey v. State, 286 Ga.App. 718, 650 S.E.2d 262 (June 20, 2007). State’s duty to produce witness’s statement prior to trial under OCGA § 17-16-7 “‘is not triggered when a witness merely makes an oral statement. There can be no “possession, custody, or control” of a witness’ statement which has neither been recorded nor committed to writing.’ Forehand v. State, 267 Ga. 254, 255-256(3) (477 S.E.2d 560) (1996). See also OCGA § 17-16-1. Under these circumstances, no discovery violation has been shown, and the trial court did not err in denying Winfrey’s motion [in limine as to the witness’s testimony]. See Holmes v. State, 275 Ga. 853, 855(6) (572 S.E.2d 569) (2002); Forehand, 267 Ga. at 255-256(3).” Accord, Simmons v. State , 321 Ga.App. 743, 743 S.E.2d 434 (May 13, 2013). Garrett v. State, 285 Ga.App. 282, 645 S.E.2d 718 (May 8, 2007). Defendant can’t wait until after trial to complain about discovery responses provided three days before trial. “Pretermitting whether the State upheld its reciprocal discovery obligations, Garrett’s failure during trial to assert a discovery violation deprived the trial court of an opportunity to formulate appropriate relief, if any. ‘If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that the state has failed to comply with the requirements of this article, the court may order [relief].’ (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 17-16-6. See Moss v. State, 275 Ga. 96, 100-101(7) (561 S.E.2d 382) (2002) (defendants’ failure to request a continuance to cure any prejudice which may have resulted from the State’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations waived their right to assert error on appeal stemming from the alleged discovery violation); Arrington v. State, 224 Ga.App. 676, 678(3)(a) (482 S.E.2d 400) (1997) (failure to object to introduction of evidence on basis of a discovery violation waived any objection based on violation of those statutory provisions). Accordingly, Garrett has waived this issue for purposes of appeal.” Ford v. State, 285 Ga.App. 106, 645 S.E.2d 590 (April 13, 2007). “Book-in photographs are not among the discoverable