Pierce v

State, 209 Ga. App. 366, 433 S.E.2d 641 (1993) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Handwritten notes and experiments of state’s experts were not scientific reports for purposes of discovery under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211. Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Graphs not scientific reports. — Graphs from an instrument known as a micro spectro photometer were not scientific reports for the purposes of discovery under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 because the graphs did not contain the conclusions of the microanalyst from the crime laboratory, but had to be interpreted by a microanalyst in order to attain the significance of the graphs. Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Former § 17-7-211 did not mandate that notes, graphs, preliminary tests, and work product be furnished because those items did not constitute scientific reports. Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. App. 790, 397 S.E.2d 63 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Reports prepared by arson investigators not scientific reports. — In an action for arson, any reports prepared by the county and state arson investigators did not constitute ‘‘scientific reports’’ within the meaning of former O.C.G.A. 1479 Scientific Reports (Cont’d) § 17-7-211 because the investigators’ analyses of the fire scene was based upon the investigators’ general knowledge gleaned from experience and training rather than on any tests performed on material taken from the scene. Kosal v. State, 204 Ga. App. 708, 420 S.E.2d 621 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Autopsist’s photographs were not ‘‘written scientific reports’’ discoverable under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211. Taylor v. State, 261 Ga. 287, 404 S.E.2d 255, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 947, 112 S. Ct. 393, 116 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Experiment of forensic serologist to determine whether serological testing could show the presence of blood in a bloodprint impressed on plastic after the print had gone through fingerprint processing, when neither the experiment nor the experiment’s results were reduced to writing, was not subject to exclusion under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211. Ruger v. State, 263 Ga. 548, 436 S.E.2d 485 (1993) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Dental impressions, x-rays, and photographs were not discoverable as written scientific reports inasmuch as those items did not contain the dentist’s conclusions and findings but had to be interpreted by the dentist to attain significance. Harris v. State, 260 Ga. 860, 401 S.E.2d 263 (1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Ballistics examination. — Court would reject the contention that the state violated the statute by failing to provide sufficient discovery regarding the ballistics examination since: (1) the record showed that the defendant was provided before trial with the report of the state firearms expert listing the expert’s conclusions, which were based on the expert’s microscopic examination of bullets and shell casings for each weapon tested in the case; and (2) the defendant was not entitled to the internal documents and work product of the crime lab. Cook v. State, 270 Ga. 820, 514 S.E.2d 657, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 974, 120 S. Ct. 419, 145 L. Ed. 2d 327 (1999). 17-16-4 Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective because there was no evidence that the state acted in bad faith with respect to the time within which the state provided the ballistics testing report to trial counsel as the record revealed that the state provided the test results to defense counsel as soon as the results became available; and, to the extent that the defendant claimed that the defendant’s trial counsel should have objected to the state expert’s testimony at trial based on having received the ballistics report less than ten days prior to trial, the admission of that testimony could not have created a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Crump v. State, 301 Ga. 871, 804 S.E.2d 364 (2017). Drug’s physical effects not scientific report. — Testimony by two expert witnesses that, in the witnesses’ knowledge and experience, a drug was a hallucinogenic which also caused certain physical effects in those who used the drug was properly admitted. The expert witnesses were not testifying as to any undisclosed scientific test results of appellant’s own bodily fluids. Kirkland v. State, 206 Ga. App. 27, 424 S.E.2d 638 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Failure to provide summary of basis for expert opinions. — Trial court did not err by ordering the defendant’s psychologist to provide the state with a copy of the interview notes upon which the psychologist was relying as the basis for the expert opinions because the defendant had not otherwise provided an updated ‘‘summary’’ of the basis for those opinions; during the psychologist’s testimony, it became apparent that the psychologist was basing the expert testimony in part on additional interviews that the psychologist had conducted since the defendant had served the state with discovery. Stinski v. State, 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 522, 178 L. Ed. 2d 385 (2010). In an action for aggravated assault and aggravated battery, the trial court abused the court’s discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance after the state failed to provide the defendant, 1480 no later than ten days prior to trial, a written summary of an oral report by a gang expert. Williams v. State, No. A20A0397, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 403 ( June 29, 2020). Trial court erred in disclosing to the state its ex parte orders. — In a capital murder case in which the defendant was granted ex parte orders for mental health experts to examine the defendant, the trial court erred in revealing to the state the identities of the experts, their areas of practice, and the bases for the examinations; remand was required to assess the likelihood of prejudice and take curative measures. Putnal v. State, 303 Ga. 569, 814 S.E.2d 307 (2018). Report not excludable. — Since the record showed that there were no scientific reports to be provided ten days before trial and that the prosecution advised the defendant of the results of the test concerning the presence of semen on the rape kit slides when learned, the report itself was not excludable under the statute since there was no written report available before the trial. Davis v. State, 204 Ga. App. 657, 420 S.E.2d 349 (1992) (decided under former §§ 17-7-210 and 17-7-211). Since the indictment charged the defendant with possession of cocaine and marijuana, the cocaine field-tested positive, the witness who performed the test was timely included in the state’s witness list and the transcript contained no evidence that the admission of the test report impaired the defendant’s trial strategy in any way, the fact that the state did not provide the defense with the report pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4 did not necessitate the report’s exclusion, particularly as the defendant did not argue that the defendant was surprised by the results and had declined a continuance. Guild v. State, 236 Ga. App. 444, 512 S.E.2d 343 (1999). Timely Request for Scientific Reports For a request for disclosure of scientific reports to be timely, whether it be made ‘‘at arraignment’’ or at some other time, the request must precede the tenth day before trial of the case. State v. 17-16-4 Meminger, 249 Ga. 561, 292 S.E.2d 681 (1982) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303); Randall v. State, 195 Ga. App. 755, 395 S.E.2d 2 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-210). Five-day span between the demand and trial precludes a finding of timeliness under subsection (b) of this section. Law v. State, 165 Ga. App. 687, 302 S.E.2d 570, aff ’d, 251 Ga. 525, 307 S.E.2d 904 (1983) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303). Continuance or recess. — Only when the prosecutor fails altogether to furnish a written scientific report does the exclusionary rule apply; when a written scientific report is furnished late, the appropriate remedy ‘‘perhaps’’ is to grant a continuance or recess upon timely request by the defendant. Wilburn v. State, 199 Ga. App. 667, 405 S.E.2d 889 (1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Shannon v. State, 205 Ga. App. 831, 424 S.E.2d 51, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 901, 424 S.E.2d 51 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by failing, sua sponte, to allow the defendant more than a 15-minute recess to examine medical records which were not provided to the defendant until the day of trial since the defendant never requested a continuance or a recess. Wilburn v. State, 199 Ga. App. 667, 405 S.E.2d 889 (1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Request by Defense for Scientific Reports Brady motion insufficient to invoke discovery. — Brady motion requesting to have disclosed and produced ‘‘the results of reports of any scientific or other tests, analysis, experiments, or studies made in connection with this case’’ was insufficient to invoke the disclosure requirements of former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211. Massey v. State, 251 Ga. 515, 307 S.E.2d 489 (1983); McCutchen v. State, 177 Ga. App. 719, 341 S.E.2d 260 (1986); Johnson v. State, 187 Ga. App. 803, 371 S.E.2d 419 (1988) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Since the defendant contended that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of scientific reports to which the defendant 1481 Request by Defense for Scientific Reports (Cont’d) objected because the prosecution allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211, and since the record showed that the defendant made no written request pursuant to that Code section and the defendant’s Brady motion failed to make reference to that Code section or to specifically invoke the ten-day time frame of that Code section, the trial court’s ruling admitting the evidence was not error. Cassie v. State, 192 Ga. App. 484, 385 S.E.2d 129, cert. denied, 192 Ga. App. 901, 385 S.E.2d 129 (1989) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Adequacy of notice. — Notice under this section is adequate if the defense specifically referred to that Code section or if it makes clear that scientific reports, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, should be furnished prior to the ten-day limit. State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571, 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303); State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561, 292 S.E.2d 681 (1982) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303). Court did not err in admitting certain scientific reports which were not provided to the defendant at least ten days prior to trial pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 since the request made was a general ‘‘Brady’’ motion without reference to scientific reports. Harden v. State, 166 Ga. App. 279, 304 S.E.2d 456 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Pretrial motion demanding a copy of any written scientific reports in the possession of the prosecution and to be introduced against the defendant but which did not mention former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 as authority for such demand and did not request that the scientific reports be produced ten days prior to trial did not constitute a valid request for discovery under that section. Lariscey v. State, 254 Ga. 241, 328 S.E.2d 213 (1985) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Defense request must precede tenth day before trial. — For a request to be timely, whether it was made at 17-16-4 arraignment or at some other time, the request must precede the tenth day before trial as otherwise it would be impossible for the state to comply with former Code 1933, § 27-1303. State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561, 292 S.E.2d 681 (1982) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303). Motion for discovery of scientific reports filed at arraignment held ten days prior to trial was untimely. Abrams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 553, 297 S.E.2d 324 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Evidence allowed if state complied with request. — If the trial transcript revealed that the defendant’s demand for scientific reports was made after arraignment and seven days prior to trial and that the defendant’s trial attorney received a copy of the relevant scientific report seven days prior to trial, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to exclude the laboratory expert’s testimony identifying the substance the defendant sold to an undercover officer as cocaine. Rolling v. State, 204 Ga. App. 13, 418 S.E.2d 396 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). No continuance for defense-requested testing. — Defendant was not entitled to a continuance pending receipt of the results of government laboratory testing which had not been requested by the state since the defendant had no right to seek, and the trial court had no authority to order, such a test for the defendant in the first place. Kendrix v. State, 206 Ga. App. 627, 426 S.E.2d 251 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). State’s Duty to Comply with Request Complete disclosure of all work materials used in compiling a scientific report was not contemplated under this section. The denial of such information did not unnecessarily prejudice the defendant or curtail the defendant’s attorney in the presentation of the defendant’s defense. Hartley v. State, 159 Ga. App. 157, 282 S.E.2d 684 (1981) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303); Ledford v. State, 264 Ga. 60, 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1085, 115 S. Ct. 740, 130 L. Ed. 2d 641 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). 1482 Former § 17-7-211 applied only to ‘‘written scientific reports.’’ If there was no writing, there was nothing to which the statute attaches. Law v. State, 251 Ga. 525, 307 S.E.2d 904 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Former § 17-7-211 applied only when there was a writing. Faircloth v. State, 253 Ga. 67, 316 S.E.2d 457 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Former § 17-7-211 applied to scientific reports in writing and not oral reports of experts relaying the results of tests. Perry v. State, 255 Ga. 490, 339 S.E.2d 922 (1986) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Herndon v. State, 187 Ga. App. 77, 369 S.E.2d 264 (1988) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Beck v. State, 196 Ga. App. 269, 396 S.E.2d 59 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Fulmer v. State, 205 Ga. App. 679, 423 S.E.2d 300 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Crumpton v. State, 213 Ga. App. 358, 444 S.E.2d 847 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Martin v. State, 214 Ga. App. 614, 448 S.E.2d 471 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Odom v. State, 214 Ga. App. 354, 447 S.E.2d 704 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Former § 17-7-210 did not attempt to mandate the furnishing of written scientific reports that did not in fact exist. Givens v. State, 214 Ga. App. 774, 449 S.E.2d 149 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211); Gay v. State, 228 Ga. App. 248, 491 S.E.2d 469 (1997). Exclusion of informal notes of investigator. — Trial court abused the court’s discretion in imposing the extreme sanction of evidence exclusion for the state’s failure to produce the investigator’s notes because the record did not show that the investigator’s informal notes, which the state could not produce, were subject to discovery under any of the provisions of Georgia’s Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. State v. Brown, 333 Ga. App. 643, 777 S.E.2d 27 (2015). Luminal test not required for disclosure. — ‘‘Luminal’’ test which was performed on the suspect vehicle at the scene of the crime and never reduced to 17-16-4 writing was not required to be provided to the defendant. Harley v. State, 263 Ga. 875, 440 S.E.2d 178 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 did not require the state to produce the actual physical evidence upon which the purported scientific report was based. Mercer v. State, 169 Ga. App. 723, 314 S.E.2d 729 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Photographic evidence. — Photo developer’s cropping procedure eliminated one the defendant’s cap from a photo; the state had the photo developed again, but the newly-developed photo, which showed the cap, was not provided to the defendants until the first day of jury selection. As the state did not act in bad faith, and alerted both the defendants and the court as soon as the state became aware of the problem, the trial court did not err by admitting the photo. Culler v. State, 277 Ga. 717, 594 S.E.2d 631 (2004). When, in an aggravated assault case, a police officer’s report notified defense counsel that photographs had been taken of the crime scene, the prosecution was not obligated by O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4(a)(3) to further notify counsel that those photographs had been developed as counsel was on notice of the distinct possibility that the photographs were part of the state’s file, and counsel was given full access to that file and chose not to exercise that privilege, so the photographs were admissible even though the defendant had not seen the photographs. Monroe v. State, 273 Ga. App. 14, 614 S.E.2d 172 (2005). In a prosecution for aggravated assault with intent to rape, the fact that the state failed to produce photos of the victim’s injuries ten days before trial, as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4(a)(3), was not grounds for reversal since the defendant did not ask for a continuance, did not show prejudice, and did not show that the state acted in bad faith. Murray v. State, 293 Ga. App. 516, 667 S.E.2d 382 (2008). Defendant did not show that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to the admission of photographs on the ground that the defense was not informed of the photographs in a timely manner, as required by O.C.G.A. 1483 State’s Duty to Comply with Request (Cont’d) § 17-6-4, because counsel did object on that ground, the objection was overruled, and that ruling was not appealed. Taylor v. State, 298 Ga. App. 145, 679 S.E.2d 371 (2009). Defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to autopsy photographs solely on the ground that the photographs were not provided to the defense ten days before trial lacked merit as the defendant failed to show counsel performed in an objectively unreasonable way by objecting on several grounds and made no showing the outcome would have been different. Sloans v. State, 304 Ga. 363, 818 S.E.2d 596 (2018). Summary of official report. — Any defect in compliance with former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 was not harmful error when the document produced pursuant to the defendants’ request was not the official lab report itself, but was only a summary and differed from the official report produced at trial, and since the defendants had full right of cross-examination. Moon v. State, 194 Ga. App. 777, 392 S.E.2d 19 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Polygraph examination results to be provided to defendant. — When a county police officer testified that two persons previously charged with the crime had been released on bond after the results of polygraph examination showed that one ‘‘was being honest in her statement’’, the results of this polygraph examination should have been turned over to the defense under the defendant’s request for copies of scientific reports. Ford v. State, 256 Ga. 375, 349 S.E.2d 361 (1986) (decided under former §§ 17-7-210 and 17-7-211). No violation if state does all state could reasonably do to furnish report. — If the trial court heard the parties and ruled as a factual matter that the state’s attorney had properly mailed fingerprint reports to defense counsel and had done all the attorney reasonably could do to furnish the defendant with a copy and if, in fact, defense counsel knew of the report and was not surprised by the re- 17-16-4 port’s admission at trial, the defendant’s rights under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211 were not violated. Pridgett v. State, 173 Ga. App. 409, 326 S.E.2d 581 (1985) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). No written report available. — Former § 17-7-211 did not serve to exclude testimony if no written scientific report was in the possession of the state and there was no evidence suggesting the state deliberately instructed witnesses not to prepare reports otherwise discoverable. McDaniel v. State, 169 Ga. App. 254, 312 S.E.2d 363 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Since there was no written report of tests analyzing marijuana until the date of trial, no evidence of prosecutorial discovery circumvention, the test results were furnished as soon as the results became available, and the defendant did not request a continuance but did speak with the witness, the trial court did not err in admitting the analysis results. Hand v. State, 206 Ga. App. 501, 426 S.E.2d 18 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Term ‘‘written report’’ limited in scope. — Right of pretrial discovery was intended by the legislature to allow a defendant to receive a complete written copy of the results of any scientific analysis, but the term ‘‘written report’’ as used in this section does not encompass the written work materials upon which the conclusions contained in the report were based. Hartley v. State, 159 Ga. App. 157, 282 S.E.2d 684 (1981) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303). Defendant’s rights in pretrial discovery do not extend to a complete and detailed accounting of all police investigatory work on a case or to a detailed description of all analytical work performed by the crime laboratory. Sears v. State, 161 Ga. App. 515, 288 S.E.2d 757 (1982) (decided under former Code 1933, § 27-1303). Notes and other work product. — State is not required to furnish the defendant with the state’s expert’s notes, work product, recordation of data, internal documents, or graphs. Roberts v. State, 196 Ga. App. 450, 396 S.E.2d 81 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Testimony of chemist as to tests conducted. — State crime laboratory fo- 1484 rensic drug chemist’s testimony as to scientific tests conducted on alleged cocaine was properly admitted since the individual test results did not include any expression of the expert’s conclusions or opinion so as to amount to a ‘‘written scientific report.’’ Roberts v. State, 196 Ga. App. 450, 396 S.E.2d 81 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211). Exclusion of evidence for noncompliance. — Former Code 1933, §§ 27-1302 and 27-1303 excluded from evidence any statements or scientific reports pertaining to a case if the defendant was not given copies of such at least ten days prior to trial after a proper request was made therefor. Jackson v. State, 158 Ga. App. 530, 281 S.E.2d 252 (1981) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 27-1302 and 27-1303). Evidence admissible when motion fails to invoke provisions of section. — Trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a death certificate because the prosecution failed to furnish the defendant a copy of the certificate prior to trial since the discovery motion failed to invoke the provisions of former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-211. Dunn v.