☢ test - Í

(2005).” Norris v. State, 289 Ga. 154, 709 S.E.2d 792 (April 26, 2011). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in denying continuance based on late identification of witnesses by State where defense was aware of witnesses from discovery and was aware of State’s intention to call them, but lacked some contact information; and trial court gave defense counsel time to interview them before trial, although some refused to talk to counsel. Accord, Leger v. State , 291 Ga. 584, 732 S.E.2d 53 (October 1, 2012) ( quoting Norris at 155: “[w]hen the identity and involvement of a witness are otherwise disclosed to defendant in discovery provided to him by the State, the purpose of the witness list rule is served and the court may allow the State to call the witness even though he or she was not listed on the State's formal witness list.”). Major v. State, 306 Ga.App. 342, 702 S.E.2d 684 (October 5, 2010). DUI conviction affirmed; no abuse of discretion where trial court continued trial to allow defense to prepare for witnesses left off State’s witness list. Trial had already commenced, and jury had been selected; after thirty-day continuance, same jury returned, heard the evidence, and convicted defendant. Held, defendant didn’t have right to demand that case go forward immediately, excluding the witnesses. “The court agreed to a continuance of 30 days to allow Major to speak to the witnesses; the jury that had been seated would return to hear the matter. Major subsequently continued to protest and stated that ‘it's our position that we should go forward today with the witnesses being excluded.’” “Major's contention is controlled adversely to him by Ruff v. State, 266 Ga.App. 694 (598 S.E.2d 362) (2004), cited with approval in Gabriel v. State, 280 Ga. 237, 239(3) (626 S.E.2d 491) (2006). The Court in Ruff makes clear that the trial court has the discretion to grant a continuance under these circumstances and that a defendant is obligated to request one to cure any possible prejudice from the State's failure to comply with OCGA § 17-16-21. Ruff, 266 Ga.App. at 695.” Webb v. State, 300 Ga.App. 611, 685 S.E.2d 498 (October 27, 2009). Conviction for child cruelty reversed; “the trial court erred by refusing to allow testimony by a witness whom she failed to identify on her witness list without a showing of bad faith and harm to the State and where the witness was identified as a potential witness by the State on the State's supplemental witness list.” Defense counsel didn’t realize the witness was on the State’s list, but “the State admitted to having a copy of [witness] Dr. Jordan's report and having conducted some investigation into his testing methodologies,” and didn’t point out to the Court that the witness was on their list. “[T]he State is presumed to know who is on its own witness list, and the State did not bring it to the attention of the trial court. The State cannot gain an advantage by sitting silently and allowing an erroneous ruling to be made.” “OCGA § 17-16-10 states: ‘Either party may call as a witness any person listed on either the prosecuting attorney's or defendant's witness list.’” Court of Appeals is not amused by State’s argument “that even though the document was titled ‘Supplemental State's Witness List,’ it was just a list of all of the names that appeared in the State's file, and the State's actual witness list was included in the subpoena/summons served on Webb. Whether or not this is true, there is no way for Webb to have known from the face of the supplemental witness list that it was something other than what it purported to be, i.e. a list of the State's witnesses. Without any qualifying language, Webb was entitled to rely on it as a document furnished to her pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-10 and was thus not required to also list Dr. Jordan on her own witness list in order to call him as a witness at trial.” Scott v. State, 298 Ga.App. 376, 680 S.E.2d 482 (June 16, 2009). No abuse of discretion where trial court allowed previously-undisclosed chain-of-custody witness to testify, after first giving defense an opportunity to interview the witness. Prosecutor was not aware of witness prior to trial. Defense moved for continuance and for mistrial. Johnson v. State, 293 Ga.App. 32, 666 S.E.2d 452 (July 24, 2008). No abuse of discretion shown where listed witness (business manager of company whose property was damaged) was injured day before trial, and State was allowed to substitute other company representatives, with opportunity for defense counsel to interview them. Thrasher v. State, 292 Ga.App. 566, 666 S.E.2d 28 (June 18, 2008). At defendant’s DUI trial, trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing State to present witness not on witness list. “The witness at issue was the operator of the intoxilyzer machine that the officers used to measure Thrasher’s blood alcohol level.” Trial court originally excluded the witness, but relented and allowed the State to re-open after the prosecutor pointed out “that the operator’s name was on the DUI arrest report as well as on the intoxilyzer results slip, both of which were produced to the defense during discovery.” “[T]he record shows that, when the court decided to admit the operator’s testimony, defense counsel did not request a continuance, he interviewed and cross-examined the operator, and he presented expert testimony to contradict the operator’s testimony. In addition, there was no evidence that the State actively concealed the operator’s identity prior