Lariscey v. State, 42004

Decision Date02 April 1985
Docket NumberNo. 42004,42004
PartiesLARISCEY v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Paul W. Calhoun, Jr., Vidalia, for Earl Jason Lariscey.

Richard A. Malone, Dist. Atty., Swainsboro, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, J. Michael Davis, for the State.

WELTNER, Justice.

Jason Lariscey shot and killed J.D. Murphy with a handgun. He appeals his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. 1

1. Lariscey contends that the trial court erred in admitting the results of a ballistics test conducted in connection with the case, because the report had not been provided to him ten days prior to trial as required by OCGA § 17-7-211.

Lariscey filed a motion for discovery and a motion for disclosure of all evidence favorable to defendant. In both motions, he requested "the results or reports of any scientific tests or experiments or studies made in connection with this case." At no time did he identify the statute under which he was making the request.

At trial, the court ruled that Lariscey had failed to make a proper request under OCGA § 17-7-211, and therefore, the prosecution had no duty to produce. Lariscey then made a proper demand and the reports of the tests were provided to him. Lariscey did not request a continuance to review the files. The reports were admitted the following day.

We have held on several occasions that a Brady motion or a motion to produce is not sufficient demand under OCGA § 17-7-211. "The information concerning [the ballistics tests] was not discoverable under the appellant's Brady motion, since it was not exculpatory. E.g., State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571(2), 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982). However, the appellant also filed a pretrial motion demanding a copy of any written scientific reports in the possession of the prosecution and to be introduced against the appellant; but, this motion neither referred to [OCGA § 17-7-211] (which is the statutory authority for the motion), nor requested that the scientific reports be produced 10 days prior to trial. Therefore, this pleading did not constitute a valid request for discovery under [§ 17-7-211]. State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561(1), (292 S.E.2d 681) (1982)." Carter v. State, 252 Ga. 502, 508, 315 S.E.2d 646 (1984). This enumeration is thus without merit.

2. In his second and fourth enumerations of error, Lariscey alleges that the trial court failed to make a proper in camera inspection of the state's files as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215) (1963).

The trial court reviewed the state's files and concluded there was nothing exculpatory in the files, but entered an order which stated "that all information and evidence in the possession of the prosecution or the State that may be materially favorable to the accused, which may lead to evidence which is materially favorable to the defendant either of a direct or impeaching nature, be afforded to defendant as delineated by the court."

One of the state's witnesses had a lengthy criminal record. "Brady does not impose an affirmative obligation on the prosecution to seek out information for the defense, even if such information is more accessible to the prosecution than to the defense." Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257, 258, 290 S.E.2d 911 (1982). Lariscey has failed to show that any impeaching evidence was actually in the state's files. Furthermore, the witness was questioned by both the prosecution and defense about past and pending criminal activity. The withholding of the information, if indeed it was available, did not "so impair his defense that he was denied a fair trial within the meaning of the Brady Rule." Wallin v. State, 248 Ga. 29, 33, 279 S.E.2d 687 (1981). Thus, there was no error.

3. Lariscey alleges that the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the two investigating officers' files in addition to the files of the district attorney.

The record does not reflect that a demand for such an inspection was ever made by Lariscey. Even so, the two officers were cross-examined extensively by the defense, and were asked specifically about the alleged exculpatory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Sears v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 3 de dezembro de 1997
    ...resulting from pending juvenile action).10 Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257, 258, 290 S.E.2d 911 (1982).11 See id.; Lariscey v. State, 254 Ga. 241, 243, 328 S.E.2d 213 (1985).12 See Rose v. State, 249 Ga. 628, 629, 292 S.E.2d 678 (1982).13 Crowe v. State, 265 Ga. 582, 587, 458 S.E.2d 799 (1995).......
  • Michael v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 de outubro de 1998
    ...We also observe that Michael's cross-examination of Mattox did not delve into the question of a deal. Compare Lariscey v. State, 254 Ga. 241, 243(4), 328 S.E.2d 213 (1985). 5. The trial court did not err in denying Michael's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence that Feder......
  • Ferguson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 4 de junho de 1997
    ...for the defense, even if such information is more accessible to the prosecution than to the defense.' [Cit.]" Lariscey v. State, 254 Ga. 241, 243, 328 S.E.2d 213 (1985); Bacon v. State, 207 Ga.App. 39, 40, 427 S.E.2d 32 (1993). Furthermore, the record shows that, either prior to trial or at......
  • Page v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 de julho de 1986
    ...appellant has not shown that there was such a report, or if there was, that it contained anything exculpatory. See Lariscey v. State, 254 Ga. 241(1), 328 S.E.2d 213 (1985). (b) We find no merit to the contention that the state erred by refusing to disclose prior convictions of any state's w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT