State v. Madigan
| Decision Date | 22 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38348,38348 |
| Citation | 292 S.E.2d 406,249 Ga. 571 |
| Parties | STATE v. George MADIGAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., Paschal A. English, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomaston, Benjamin H. Oehlert, III, Atlanta, for the State.
Andrew J. Whalen, III, Griffin, for George Madigan.
The defendant was indicted on June 3, 1980, for the aggravated assault and armed robbery of 76 year old Lora Carden. On June 9, 1980, ten days before trial, he filed a Motion Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and a Notice to Produce under Code Ann. § 38-801(g) requesting that the state furnish him with five categories of materials, including: "(2) Results of any scientific tests, experiments or studies made in connection with the ... case and copies of all such reports...." He requested that these be furnished to him "sufficiently in advance of trial to give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare a proper defense."
At the time of the defendant's request, the state had in its possession a hospital emergency room report specifying the victim's injuries and treatment, and a State Crime Laboratory report identifying the blood found on the suspected assault weapon (a hammer) and on the defendant's socks as consistent with the victim's blood type. The state furnished the defendant a copy of the State Crime Laboratory report on June 17, 1980, but did not provide him with a copy of the emergency room report.
The case was called for trial on June 19, 1980, and the defendant moved to suppress both reports because he had not received copies at least 10 days prior to trial as required by Code Ann. § 27-1303(a). 1 The trial court suppressed both reports for failure to comply with the statute, but the state was permitted at trial to introduce testimony from the State Crime Laboratory forensic serologist and the victim's physician as to the substance of the reports. The defendant was subsequently convicted of the offenses charged.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Madigan v. State, 160 Ga.App. 656, 288 S.E.2d 34 (1981). We granted certiorari.
1. The Court of Appeals held that it was error to allow the forensic serologist and the physician to testify as to the substance of their reports and, quoting from Tanner v. State, 160 Ga.App. 266, 268, 287 S.E.2d 268 (1981), said:
Scientific reports generally are not admissible in evidence as such. A properly qualified witness may be allowed to testify as to the results of scientific examinations or experiments conducted by that witness. After the witness has testified as to the result of the scientific examination or experiment, there is no need to introduce the report itself. Nevertheless, such reports frequently are introduced after the examiner has testified, at which point the content of the otherwise inadmissible scientific report becomes cumulative of the properly admitted testimony of the witness.
Because scientific reports generally are not admissible in evidence as such and because the testimony of the witness who prepared the report is generally required whether or not the report itself is admitted into evidence, the exclusionary sanction of Code Ann. § 27-1303(b) would be meaningless if the scientific reports were excluded but the examiners' testimony admitted.
We therefore affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that where a defendant in a criminal case makes a proper and timely written demand for scientific reports and the prosecution fails to timely furnish the defendant with a copy of any written scientific report in the possession of or available to the district attorney, the testimony of the person who prepared the report is not admissible in evidence on objection by the defendant. Although the statute itself does not expressly require exclusion of such testimony, the statute would be meaningless otherwise and we will undertake to implement the statute as written and as intended, rather than to render it meaningless. Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie, 207 Ga. 464(1), 62 S.E.2d 209 (1950); Kent v. State, 18 Ga.App. 30, 88 S.E. 913 (1916); Wellmaker v. Terrell, 3 Ga.App. 791(1a), 60 S.E. 464 (1907); Code Ann. § 102-102(9).
2. We come next to the question of whether the defendant made a proper request for production of scientific reports under Code Ann. § 27-1303(a).
A Brady (v. State of Maryland ) motion [373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ] calls for production of exculpatory evidence, not inculpatory evidence. Hence inculpatory scientific reports are not reached by a Brady motion. A notice to produce under Code § 38-801(g) calls, in criminal cases, for production of physical evidence at trial or a hearing. Code Ann. § 38-801. Hence, a notice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...trial court overruled this objection, finding that the graphs did not compose "scientific reports." We agree. In State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571, 574, fn. 2, 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982), we briefly discussed the issue of what elements comprise a scientific report. We noted that the element common t......
-
Williams v. State
...foreign objects for the purpose of determining the cause of death and circumstances surrounding the same." "In State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571, 574, fn. 2 (292 SE2d 406) (1982), ... [w]e noted that the element common to the examples of scientific reports listed in OCGA § 17-7-211 ... was 'tha......
-
Tabb v. State
...(1982). Appellant's motion did neither. Therefore the trial court did not err in admitting her statement at trial. See State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571, 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982); State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561, 292 S.E.2d 681 4. Appellant contends that a mistrial should have been declared because......
-
Worth v. State, 74069
...of or available to the prosecuting attorney." See Luck v. State, 163 Ga.App. 657(2), 295 S.E.2d 584 (1982); State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571, 573(1), 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982), disapproved on other grounds, Law v. State, supra, 251 Ga. at 528(1), 307 S.E.2d (a) First is whether this was a scientif......
-
Hope for the Best and Prepare for the Worst: the Capital Defender's Guide to Reciprocal Discovery in the Sentencing Phase of Georgia Death Penalty Trials
...408 U.S. 786, 794-95 (1972). 23. 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 24. See, e.g., O.C.G.A §§ 17-7-110, -210 to -211 (repealed 1995); State v. Madigan, 292 S.E.2d 406, 407-08 (Ga. 1982). 25. See John r. Martin & Donald F. Samuel, The 1994 Georgia Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, 31 Ga. St. Bar J. 54, 55 ......