☢ test - Í

in its discretion, could exclude the evidence rather than grant defendant’s request for continuance. 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. Brinson v. State, 288 Ga. 435, 704 S.E.2d 756 (January 10, 2011). Defendant’s murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence – a restaurant receipt which bolstered his testimony as to his whereabouts earlier in the evening of the murder. “Because the shooting occurred around 10:30 p.m., the fact that Brinson was at a restaurant around 8:30 p.m. and returned to his apartment before 9:00 p.m. does not, as the trial court found, ‘impact whether he may have left again and traveled to the scene of the shooting’ in time to commit the crimes. The evidence therefore is not so material that it would probably produce a different result. Moreover, the evidence is cumulative of Brinson's and his girlfriend's testimony at trial.” Huckabee v. State, 287 Ga. 728, 699 S.E.2d 531 (July 5, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for felony murder and related offenses affirmed; 1. trial court properly prevented defendant from presenting alibi defense where defense gave prosecution notice of the defense just three days before trial, and one of the alibi witnesses refused to talk to prosecution. “Appellate courts in this state have held that the prosecution is prejudiced when it does not have the full ten days to investigate alibi evidence. Freeman v. State, 245 Ga.App. 384, 385(2) (537 S.E.2d 776) (2000); Todd v. State, 230 Ga.App. 849, 854(3)(b) (498 S.E.2d 142) (1998), overruled on other grounds in Johnson v. State, 272 Ga. 468 (532 S.E.2d 377) (2000). Here, the State had notice of the alibi just three days before the start of trial. Although appellant made his alibi witnesses available, at least one witness was uncooperative, further prejudicing the State. When the State ‘“is denied the ten days authorized by law in which to investigate and refute the alleged alibi, ... the development of such evidence is clearly hampered if not rendered impossible.” [Cit .]’ Freeman v. State, supra, 245 Ga.App. at 385. During the ten or eleven months between the time appellant was jailed and the days immediately preceding trial, he never advised his attorneys he had an alibi and none of his proposed alibi witnesses came forward to say appellant was somewhere else at the time of the crime. Furthermore, appellant provided no justification or valid excuse for his failure to disclose his alibi at an earlier time. Under these circumstances, appellant's failure to timely come forward with his alibi defense constituted prejudice and bad faith warranting the exclusion of his alibi evidence. See Card v. State, 273 Ga.App. 367(3) (615 S.E.2d 139) (2005) (defendant's failure to reveal a witness to his attorney or to the court until a few days before trial commenced supported the exclusion of the witness's testimony.)” 2. “Appellant's argument that the State's demand for alibi evidence was late because it was not served within 10 days of appellant's arraignment is inapposite. OCGA § 17-16-5(a) provides that the demand may be made ‘at such time as the court permits.’” State v. Charbonneau, 281 Ga. 46, 635 S.E.2d 759 (October 2, 2006). Reversing 275 Ga.App. 495, 621 S.E.2d 514 (September 13, 2005). After opting in to reciprocal discovery, defendant failed to respond to State’s demand to disclose any alibi defense, but tried to testify to an alibi at trial. Trial court prohibited defendant from testifying to any alibi other than denying that he had ever been at the scene of the crime. Held, Court of Appeals erred in holding that no notice of alibi was required where the only evidence would be defendant’s own testimony. “OCGA § 17-16-5(a) states in relevant part that ‘[u]pon written demand by the prosecuting attorney ..., the defendant shall serve ... upon the prosecuting attorney a written notice of the defendant’s intention to offer a defense of alibi.’ Thus, the plain language of the statute required Charbonneau to give notice of his alibi defense even if he was the only witness planning to testify to such defense .” Distinguishing Johnson v. State , 272 Ga. 468, 532 S.E.2d 377 (2000): “In Johnson, unlike the present case, the defendant responded to the State’s written demand for notice of any alibi defense and indicated that he would be the only possible witness in support of that defense. Consequently, the salient issue was not whether the defendant was required to give notice in response to the State’s demand for notice of intention to offer an alibi defense under OCGA § 17-16-5(a), but rather whether the defendant had to disclose the substance of his alibi testimony prior to trial. And certainly he did not. Johnson v. State supra. But this is a far cry from interpreting the statutory provision as exempting the defendant from giving the State any notice at all of the intent to offer a defense of alibi.” Benham and Hunstein dissent, arguing that Johnson holds that no pretrial disclosure of defendant’s own testimony is required by the code section. Charbonneau v. State, 275 Ga.App. 495, 621 S.E.2d 514 (September 13, 2005). Reversed, State v. Charbonneau , 281 Ga. 46, 635 S.E.2d 759 (October 2, 2006) (see above).