☢ test - Í

Tarpley v. State, 298 Ga. 442, 782 S.E.2d 642 (February 8, 2016). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no abuse of discretion in allowing medical examiner to testify, though not included on State’s witness list. “The trial court here remedied the discovery violation in the following ways: Tarpley was allowed to interview the medical examiner; the trial court continued the trial to allow the gunshot residue test to be completed; once it was determined that there was gunshot residue on Estes’ hands, Tarpley was permitted to interview the individual who performed the gunshot-residue test and call him as a witness; and the parties were permitted to conduct an additional voir dire of the jury to address the two new witnesses. While Tarpley contends on appeal that the trial court should have excluded the testimony of the medical examiner, Tarpley has failed to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant such a harsh sanction; notably, Tarpley acknowledged that he killed Estes, and he has failed to demonstrate that his inability to impeach the medical examiner hindered his defense. Likewise, Tarpley takes issue with the fact that the gunshot-residue expert testified that the residue on Estes’ hands could have come from the shots that killed Estes; while Tarpley contends that, with additional time, he could have found an alternative expert to counter this ‘preposterous notion,’ he points to no evidence supporting such a contention. In light of the lack of prejudice resulting from the discovery violations, the trial court exercised sound discretion here. See Norris v. State, 289 Ga. 154, 156(2), 709 S.E.2d 792 (2011) (recognizing that remedies for discovery violations may include affording the defense the opportunity to interview the witness and granting a continuance).” Mitchell v. State, 326 Ga.App. 899, 755 S.E.2d 308 (March 17, 2014). Armed robbery conviction reversed; trial court erred by excluding two defense witnesses, unquestionably discovered after start of trial. “The victim and sole eyewitness, Haywood, was the first witness to testify at trial. On direct examination, Haywood recounted his version of the events and specifically testified that he had neither seen nor met Mitchell (Naro's cousin) prior to the robbery. During a brief recess, Mitchell's trial counsel was approached by two individuals who had been sitting in the courtroom observing the trial. They informed counsel that they recognized Haywood when he came into the courtroom, that Haywood was known by a different name in the community, and that Haywood had known Mitchell for several years.[fn] Thus, the existence of these witnesses and the relevance of the information they possessed did not become apparent until Haywood appeared on the witness stand and testified.” 1. Trial court excluded the witnesses based on failure to disclose them in discovery , but such an exclusion can only be made “upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith,” OCGA § 17-16-6, and “the record clearly shows that there was no bad faith on the part of Mitchell in failing to disclose the newly-discovered witnesses.” 2. Trial court excluded the witnesses based on violation of the rule of sequestration, but a) the two weren’t potential witnesses at the time the rule was invoked, and b) the remedy for a violation of sequestration is not exclusion, but a jury charge on credibility. Robinson v. State, 246 Ga.App. 576, 583(7), 541 S.E.2d 660 (2000). Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 593, 740 S.E.2d 147 (March 18, 2013). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed. Trial court properly excluded “a surprise witness that Jones failed to disclose to the prosecuting attorney before trial.” Record supports finding of prejudice “because [the State] already had rested its case, and because the prosecuting attorney would have had insufficient time to interview the witness or otherwise prepare for the testimony that the witness might offer. The trial court also was authorized to find that Jones acted in bad faith when he failed to notify the State that the witness might appear, given that Jones was aware of the witness at least a week before trial.” Lynch v. State, 291 Ga. 555, 731 S.E.2d 672 (September 10, 2012). Murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court wasn’t required to exclude State’s rebuttal witness to defendant’s alibi defense though not included on witness list. OCGA § 17-16-5(b) requires the State to identify rebuttal witnesses to an alibi defense within five days of defendant’s alibi notice, but failure to do so results in exclusion of the evidence only “upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith,” neither of which was made here. Powers v. State, 314 Ga.App. 733, 725 S.E.2d 848 (March 12, 2012). Rape and related convictions affirmed; no error in denying continuance despite late identification of witnesses by State. Friday before trial, State added defendant’s wife to witness list; “she was not a ‘surprise’ witness because Powers knew of her existence and of any relevant contact he had with her during the events at issue. She was added to the witness list as soon as the State discovered she was available to testify, on the Friday before trial. The State also admitted that it had added a police officer to its witness list as a substitute for another officer who might not be available, to testify about events surrounding Powers' capture after he escaped from custody. … In this case, Powers waived the issue with regard to the substituted police officer because he withdrew his objection. He did not ask to interview either witness before they testified and does not contend that he was surprised by the witnesses' testimony or prejudiced by not knowing earlier that they were going to testify. Further, he made no showing that the State acted in bad faith in failing to list either witness earlier. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Powers' motion for a continuance and permitting the witnesses to testify. Taylor v. State, 305 Ga.App. 748, 753(2)(a) (700 S.E.2d 841) (2010); Rollinson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 375, 378(1)(c) (623 S.E.2d 211)