☢ test - Í

defendant, which defendant failed to produce in discovery. “[A] showing of bad faith and prejudice to the state is required to warrant exclusion of evidence. [Cit.] In the case at bar, the trial court made clear that it was excluding the evidence based solely upon the fact that Brown had not timely provided the letters. The trial court made no specific finding that Brown acted in bad faith and that the state was prejudiced thereby.” Harmless error, however, where evidence was cumulative. Accord, Jones (February 9, 2007), above (State’s evidence shouldn’t have been excluded absent findings of bad faith and prejudice). Mullins v. State, 267 Ga.App. 393, 599 S.E.2d 340 (May 13, 2004). No discovery abuse where state produced for defense counsel’s inspection the car CD player stolen by defendant, and at trial received permission to pry it open to show the jury the CD’s inside it. Trial court ruled that the CD’s were part of the exhibit. Prosecutor said he’d told defense counsel pre- trial that he planned to introduce the CD’s, but could not at the time open the player and remove them. Joncamlae v. State, 267 Ga.App. 214, 598 S.E.2d 923 (April 30, 2004). Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when she failed to object to in-court identification of defendant by victims who based that identification on a photograph from State’s file, sent the day before testifying, which was not properly disclosed in discovery. Distinguished from James v. State , 233 Ga.App. 516, 504 S.E.2d 533 (1998), where witness was trained investigator whose identification of defendant was not dependent upon photograph he saw in State’s file. Wilkerson v. State, 266 Ga.App. 721, 598 S.E.2d 364 (April 1, 2004). “The reciprocal discovery act is codified at OCGA § 17-16-1 et seq. OCGA § 17-16-7, in pertinent part, provides that no later than ten days prior to trial, the prosecution shall produce ‘any statement of any witness that is in the possession, custody, or control of the state or prosecution ... that relates to the subject matter concerning the testimony of the witness....’ As used in the act, the term ‘[p]ossession, custody, or control of the state or prosecution’ includes items within the possession, custody, or control of ... any law enforcement agency involved in the investigation of the case being prosecuted.’ OCGA § 17-16-1(1).Therefore, the prosecution was under an obligation to provide the defense with a copy of [child molesting victim’s] pretrial statement to the investigating officer, even though the statement remained in the exclusive physical possession of the police.” Error was harmless, however, where defendant “did not seek to prevent introduction of [victim’s] pretrial statement to the officer, as it was helpful to the defense. And counsel was allowed to inspect the report in which the statement appeared. ” Ruff v. State, 266 Ga.App. 694, 598 S.E.2d 362 (March 31, 2004). “‘[A] defendant is obliged to request a continuance to cure any prejudice which may have resulted from the State’s failure to comply with the requirements of the reciprocal discovery act. State v. Dickerson, 273 Ga. 408, 411, 542 S.E.2d 487 (2001) . Under the circumstances, we hold that [Ruff] waived [his] right to assert error on appeal by [his knowing] failure to seek a continuance,’ Jenkins v. State , 235 Ga.App. 547, 549, 510 S.E.2d 87 (1998).” Accord, Major v. State , 306 Ga.App. 342, 702 S.E.2d 684 (October 5, 2010). Culler v. State, 277 Ga. 717, 594 S.E.2d 631 (March 29, 2004). State produced photographs of the scene of the crime. On the eve of trial, State discovered that the print had been cropped during printing, omitting a detail revealed by the negative: defendant’s cap on the ground. Defendants objected to admission of the new print, arguing “that because the State failed to produce the undeveloped negative during discovery, the trial court should have barred the photo’s admission.” “We note that by statute, the State was obligated to make available to the defense those photographs it intended to use as evidence at trial, and there is no indication in the record… that the State intended to use the undeveloped negatives as evidence.” See OCGA § 17-16-4 et seq. Boykin v. State, 264 Ga.App. 836, 592 S.E.2d 426 (December 3, 2003). State’s failure to produce documentary evidence intended for use at trial, pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-49(a)(3), may result in continuance or order to produce, but evidence will not be excluded absent showing both that defendant has been prejudiced, and State acted in bad faith. OCGA § 17- 16-6. Accord, Bennett v. State , 289 Ga.App. 110, 657 S.E.2d 6 (January 8, 2008) (no error in admitting document absent showing of prejudice). Shields v. State, 264 Ga.App. 232, 590 S.E.2d 217 (November 19, 2003). Defendant having opted into reciprocal discovery under OCGA § 17-16-6, prosecutor had an affirmative duty to provide defendant with the victim’s “current” locations and could “‘not rest solely on the fact that is within their possession,’” quoting State v. Dickerson , 273 Ga. 408, 410 (1), 542 S.E.2d 487 (2001). Here, however, defense counsel never told district attorney he was having trouble contacting victim until morning of jury selection; no bad faith was shown; defense counsel declined opportunity to interview victim before trial; and defense counsel could not be surprised that victim was to testify; hence, no harm was shown. Furthermore, because defendant failed to seek continuance, “‘the trial court did not have authority, under OCGA § 17-16-6, to exercise discretion and exclude [the victim’s testimony] at trial.’ (Cit.)”