☢ test - Í

Rollinson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 375, 623 S.E.2d 211 (November 15, 2005). 1. Trial court properly declined to exclude a recording of defendant’s statement to police, located and provided to defense counsel nine days before trial. “This material could not have prejudiced Rollinson. His consistent trial strategy was always to admit that he unwittingly aided the first robbery by giving Berry the gun but knew about neither robbery beforehand; Rollinson so testified at Berry’s [previous] trial. Nothing in this material surprised Rollinson. He did not request a continuance to study the disclosures; he immediately asked that the material be excluded from evidence. The trial court did not err in denying this request. [Cit.]” 2. Trial court properly declined to exclude testimony of officer added to witness list five days before trial where officer had previously been interviewed by defense counsel and witness’s testimony was consistent with defendant’s theory of case. “‘Excluding evidence is a harsh sanction and should be imposed only when there is a showing of prejudice to the defense and bad faith by the State.’ (Citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Fairbanks v. State, 242 Ga.App. 830, 832(2), 531 S.E.2d 381 (2000).” Grier v. State, 276 Ga.App. 655, 624 S.E.2d 149 (October 20, 2005). “Pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-8(a), ‘the defendant’s attorney, within ten days after compliance by the prosecuting attorney but no later than five days prior to trial, ... shall furnish to the opposing counsel ... the names, current locations, dates of birth, and telephone numbers of [the defendant’s] witnesses.’ Upon a showing of bad faith and prejudice, the trial court is authorized to prohibit the testimony of a witness who was not identified in a timely manner. OCGA § 17-16-6.” Here, court could find that counsel withheld knowledge of witness’s existence, though evidence was in dispute. Ely v. State, 275 Ga.App. 708, 621 S.E.2d 811 (October 4, 2005). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on discovery violation, where state inadvertently failed to make videotaped statements of two witnesses available to defense. Card v. State, 273 Ga.App. 367, 615 S.E.2d 139 (May 2, 2005). Where reciprocal discovery was invoked, trial court did not err in excluding defense witness identified only the day before trial began. “Card had several months before trial in which to inform his attorney about the existence of his witness, and he offered no justification or valid excuse for his failure to do so until three days before trial. ‘Under these circumstances, evidence was presented authorizing a finding that [Card] acted in bad faith and that his actions prejudiced the State. We therefore cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion’ to exclude the witness’s testimony. Freeman v. State, 245 Ga.App. 384, 385(2) (537 S.E.2d 776) (2000).” Moore v. State, 279 Ga. 45, 609 S.E.2d 340 (February 21, 2005). “Moore contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State’s firearms expert to testify about the pressure of the trigger pull on the murder weapon when the expert’s findings on this subject had not been disclosed in the ballistic report provided to Moore before trial. The record shows that the firearms expert’s testimony about her conclusion regarding the pressure required to operate the gun was contained in internal notes that are not routinely published. Cook v. State, 270 Ga. 820(13), 514 S.E.2d 657 (1999) (defendant not entitled to internal documents and work product of crime lab). Accordingly, this enumeration lacks merit.” Clark v. State, 271 Ga.App. 534, 610 S.E.2d 165 (February 8, 2005). Defendant opted in to reciprocal discovery; he also filed a statutory speedy trial demand. Five days before trial, he filed a list of witnesses disclosing witness Orr for the first time, but omitting her date of birth. Three days before trial, he filed a statement from witness Orr. The statement was made four months earlier. State objected to the witness. Trial court gave the State the opportunity to interview the witness prior to trial, but the prosecutor complained that she was not forthcoming. Held, in these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring the defendant from presenting the witness. OCGA § 17-16-7 requires that the witness be disclosed at least ten days prior to trial. OCGA § 17-16-6 authorizes the court to prohibit presentation of a witness not disclosed, “upon a showing of prejudice or bad faith.” “[T]he State made a sufficient showing that it would be prejudiced by allowing the witness to testify because it had no time to verify the allegations in her statement, and … Clark showed bad faith by waiting so late to deliver the statement, made four months before, to the State.” Court was also within its discretion to offer defendant the option of postponing trial upon waiving his speedy trial demand. Turner v. State, 270 Ga.App. 245, 606 S.E.2d 296 (October 29, 2004). Nurse testified that child sexual abuse can occur without physical signs, citing to medical studies. “On redirect examination, the prosecutor referred to the medical studies, showed the nurse a copy of a particular study, and asked the nurse if she was familiar with it. When the nurse responded that she was familiar with it, the prosecutor questioned the nurse about the study, but it was not introduced into evidence. Prior to the questioning, the trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection that the state had not shown him the study prior to trial and allowed him to obtain a copy. On appeal, [defendant] contends that it was error to admit the study into