Tribble v. State
Decision Date | 21 September 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 37344,37344 |
Citation | 248 Ga. 274,280 S.E.2d 352 |
Parties | TRIBBLE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Dunham McAllister, McAllister & Roberts, Jonesboro, for George Herman Tribble, Jr.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Jack Wimbish, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, for the State.
The Georgia Court of Appeals has certified the following two questions to this court:
1. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 106-107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2398-2399, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).
The duty of the prosecution to provide exculpatory material to the criminal defendant must be distinguished from the "duty" of the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection. The two are not coextensive. While Brady imposes an affirmative duty on the prosecution to produce at the appropriate time ... evidence which is materially favorable to the accused ..." Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797, 800 (5th Cir. 1968). The in camera inspection is merely a procedure which has been employed by the courts of this state as a means of accommodating the interest of the state in the effective prosecution of criminal cases and the interest of the accused in the preparation of his defense. See, e. g., Strong v. State, 246 Ga. 612, 272 S.E.2d 281 (1980); Fleming v. State, 236 Ga. 434, 438, 224 S.E.2d 15 (1976); Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410, 418, 216 S.E.2d 258 (1975); Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294, 296, 210 S.E.2d 775 (1974), see also United States v. Harris, 458 F.2d 670, 677(5th. Cir. 1972). We hold that a trial court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection of the state's file in connection with a "general" Brady motion unless, after the state has made its response to the motion, the defense makes a request for such an inspection. State v. Shepherd Construction Co., 248 Ga. 3, 281 S.E.2d 151 (1981); Hamby v. State, 243 Ga. 339, 341, 253 S.E.2d 759 (1979); Houser v. State, 234 Ga. 209, 213, 214 S.E.2d 893 (1975).
In Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974), this court held: "The appellant has the burden of showing how his case has been materially prejudiced, even when the trial court declines to make an in camera inspection." (Emphasis supplied.) See also Pryor v. State, 238 Ga. 698, 706, 234 S.E.2d 918 (1977); Street v. State, 237 Ga. 307, 316, 227 S.E.2d 750 (1976); Coachman v. State, 236 Ga. 473, 475, 224 S.E.2d 36 (1976). To the extent this language implies that a trial court may decline to make an in camera inspection notwithstanding a proper request, it will not be followed. However, we do not retreat from the rule that "a defendant bears the burden of showing prejudice to his case resulting from the prosecution's refusal to turn over documents or evidence." Id. at 475, 224 S.E.2d 36; Dickey v. State, 240 Ga. 634, 636, 242 S.E.2d 55 (1978); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697, 700, 238 S.E.2d 334 (1977); Payne v. State, supra 233 Ga. at 296-297, 210 S.E.2d 775.
2. Consistent with our holding in Division 1 of this opinion, we hold that the trial court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection of the state's file following a "specific" Brady motion unless the defense makes a request therefor. See Wilson v. State, 246 Ga. 62, 65, 268 S.E.2d 895 (1980); State v. Shepherd Construction Co., supra. We note that, even in the absence of a motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Castell v. State
...or an in-camera inspection conducted. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Cf., Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274, 280 S.E.2d 352 (1981). The defendant contends that the record contains two instances of improper First, the defendant notes that Jones stated ......
-
State v. Blackwell
...104 S.Ct. 2528. 14. Id. at 483, 104 S.Ct. 2528. 15. Id. at 489-490, 104 S.Ct. 2528. 16. (Punctuation omitted.) Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274, 275(1), 280 S.E.2d 352 (1981). 17. Black's Law Dictionary (5th 18. Trombetta, supra at 488, 104 S.Ct. 2528. 19. 166 Ill.2d 310, 209 Ill.Dec. 748, 652......
-
Parks v. State
...by any agent of the state in connection with this case, and an in camera inspection of the state's file. See Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274, 280 S.E.2d 352 (1981). The trial court conducted an in camera inspection and ordered that a number of items be furnished to Parks. However, for some un......
-
Kilgore v. State
...Kilgore exercised his right to request an in camera inspection. Reed v. State, supra, p. 55, 287 S.E.2d 205; Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274(1), 280 S.E.2d 352 (1981). Kilgore was particularly concerned with an inspection of the statements of Constance Chambers. Although Kilgore alleges the t......