Williams v. State, A97A0126
| Decision Date | 30 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A0126,A97A0126 |
| Citation | 226 Ga.App. 313,485 S.E.2d 837 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 1872 WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L. Clark Landrum, Tifton, for appellant.
C. Paul Bowden, District Attorney, Gary C. McCorvey, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher J. Williams appeals his conviction of armed robbery, contending that the court erred in allowing the testimony of a witness and in failing to charge the jury regarding the effect of a confession by a joint conspirator.
The evidence shows that Williams and Matt Griffin drove to a Piggly Wiggly store in the early morning hours of October 28, 1995. Griffin entered the store by himself and robbed a Piggly Wiggly employee at gunpoint. In a statement to police offered at trial, Williams stated that Griffin returned to the car and told Williams to drive. Williams stated that Griffin showed him money and said that he had robbed the Piggly Wiggly with a fake gun. Griffin gave Williams some of the money from the robbery.
At trial, the State also offered the testimony of Heath Register. Register testified that he had a discussion with Williams and Griffin at the Ocilla Sweet Potato Festival, in which Williams and Griffin bragged about having robbed the Piggly Wiggly store.
1. Williams contends the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Register, because the State failed to comply with its discovery obligations under OCGA § 17-16-1 et seq.
In reviewing a trial court's decision whether to impose sanctions or take other corrective action as a result of the State's failure to comply with its discovery obligations, the appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See OCGA § 17-16-6.
At trial, Williams' attorney stated that he was not served with any discovery with respect to Register, and that he had no idea what Register would testify to. He stated that, "I object on that basis, that I was not properly served under the discovery statutes." Williams' attorney did not articulate the grounds for his objection until after Register had testified before the jury. At the start of Register's testimony, Williams' attorney asked to approach the bench. Following an unrecorded bench conference, the court stated that it would allow Williams' attorney to make an objection at a later time as if it were being made at that time. The attorney made his objection at the conclusion of Register's testimony, outside the presence of the jury.
OCGA § 17-16-6 provides that, if the State fails to comply with its discovery requirements, "the court may order the state to permit the discovery or inspection, interview of the witness, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the state from introducing the evidence not disclosed or presenting the witness not disclosed, or may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances." Williams did not request any of these items of relief, but merely stated that he "objected" on the basis that he was not properly served under the discovery statutes. As Williams did not request any relief, the court did not err in allowing Register to testify.
Furthermore, at the time he made his objection, Williams' attorney did not present to the trial court evidence of how the State had failed to comply with its discovery obligations, but merely stated that he had not been served with any discovery regarding Register. He did not indicate that he believed the State possessed any documents which should have been produced, nor did he request a continuance of the trial to review the State's files to see if it possessed any documents which should have been produced. The prosecutor admitted that he had personally spoken with Register the day before trial. Although the State did not provide Williams with a summary of Register's statement to the prosecutor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...230 Ga.App. 125, 495 S.E.2d 600 (1998). 6. Todd v. State, 230 Ga.App. 849, 854(3), 498 S.E.2d 142 (1998). 7. Williams v. State, 226 Ga.App. 313, 314(1), 485 S.E.2d 837 (1997). 8. (Citations omitted.) Reid v. State, 232 Ga.App. 313, 315(2), 501 S.E.2d 842 (1998). 9. OCGA § 16-8-41(a). 10. Mi......
-
Hinds v. State
...The videotape was filmed by Hinds's mother and depicted portions of a visit between Hinds and the children. 20. Williams v. State, 226 Ga.App. 313, 314(1), 485 S.E.2d 837 (1997). 21. OCGA § 22. See Cox v. State, 242 Ga.App. 334, 338(7), 528 S.E.2d 871 (2000) ("Because there can be no `posse......
-
Chernowski v. State, A14A2151.
...we further note that this Court cannot consider evidence that was not presented to the trial court. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 226 Ga.App. 313, 315(1), 485 S.E.2d 837 (1997).7 See generally OCGA § 5–6–42 (“Where there is a transcript of evidence and proceedings to be included in the reco......
-
Brown v. State
...discovery obligations, the appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion." Williams v. State, 226 Ga.App. 313, 314(1), 485 S.E.2d 837 (1997). Before jury selection, the State advised the court that one of its witnesses had brought photographs of the merchan......