☢ test - Í

Gabriel v. State, 280 Ga. 237, 626 S.E.2d 491 (February 13, 2006). Trial court did not err in allowing testimony of previously un-noticed witness solely to identify victim’s handwriting on certain letters. “At no time did Gabriel request a continuance to investigate the matter, nor did he avail himself of the court’s invitation to voir dire or cross-examine the witness. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion in allowing the witness to testify. [Cits.]” 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).” Blevins v. State, 270 Ga.App. 388, 606 S.E.2d 624 (November 9, 2004). Child molestation convictions affirmed. “Because he failed to agree to reciprocal discovery, Blevins was not entitled to a continuing list of trial witnesses, although he was entitled to a list of witnesses who testified before the grand jury. State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361, 366(4)(c) (518 S.E.2d 677) (1999).” Accord, Rayo-Leon (August 11, 2006), above. Bogan v. State, 270 Ga.App. 162, 605 S.E.2d 872 (October 21, 2004). Cocaine trafficking conviction affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing testimony of witness omitted from witness list, where the witness had previously been identified in a similar transaction hearing. Grier v. State, 262 Ga.App. 777, 586 S.E.2d 448 (August 18, 2003). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed. Trial court did not err in refusing to grant defendant a continuance “when a new State’s witness appeared on the day of trial.” Witness was an eyewitness to the assault. “‘Granting or refusing a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a clear showing of abuse, this court will not reverse for refusing to grant a continuance.’ Allowing defense counsel an opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness is a permissible alternative to a continuance. In this case, it is clear that the State discovered the witness’s name at the same time Grier did, and Grier did not argue to the trial court and has not shown on appeal that the interviews led to any other witnesses or evidence of which he was otherwise unaware.” Accord, Sullivan v. State , 295 Ga.App. 145, 671 S.E.2d 180 (November 12, 2008). Lewis v. State, 246 Ga.App. 170, 539 S.E.2d 859 (September 27, 2000). DUI conviction affirmed; trial court properly admitted the arresting officer’s testimony even though the police officer was not identified as a witness in response to the defendant’s written demand for witness list, since the defendant did not file his demand prior to arraignment as required . Hammett v. State, 246 Ga.App. 287, 539 S.E.2d 193 (September 11, 2000). Theft by taking conviction affirmed; defendant couldn’t complain about late notice of State’s witness where he never demanded list of witnesses. “[W]e find no filing whereby Hammett gave written notice that he elected to have the discovery provisions of OCGA § 17–16–1 et seq. apply to his case. Consequently, OCGA § 17–16–3 does not apply of its own force to oblige the State to furnish a list of witnesses on its own initiative. See, e.g., Miller v. State, 235 Ga.App. 724, 725, 510 S.E.2d 560 (1998) (absent written notice required by OCGA § 17–16–2(a), provisions of OCGA § 17–16–4(a) do not apply). Accord Wright v. State, 226 Ga.App. 848, 850(4), 487 S.E.2d 405 (1997). Nor is there any written demand for a list of witnesses. In order to invoke the rights protected by Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XIV of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, there must first be a timely, written demand. Sutton v. State, 237 Ga. 423, 424(1), 228 S.E.2d 820 (1976); Page v. State, 237 Ga. 20(1), 227 S.E.2d 8 (1976) (before the constitutional provision becomes operative, defendant must make a demand before arraignment on the district attorney). Accord Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 721, 722(1), 157 S.E.2d 734 (1967) (absent such demand nothing is required). As the record here contains none, the trial court did not err in permitting the unlisted witness to testify over objection. Jackson v. State, 235 Ga. 857, 858(1), 221 S.E.2d 605 (1976).” Holmes v. State , 272 Ga. 517, 529 S.E.2d 879 (May 8, 2000). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in allowing State’s rebuttal witness, not on witness list. “The trial court ordered a recess to allow defense counsel time to interview Taylor. … We find no error in the trial court's ruling allowing Taylor to testify though he was not included on the State's pretrial witness lists. A trial court may allow a witness to testify even though not listed as a witness if the defense is provided a reasonable opportunity to interview the witness before testimony is given. Thrasher v. State, 265