SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE and LA ND, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s
Septem ber 10, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 801

. STA TE v

. M A RTI N

. L A N D , J u d ge. A f ter t he State f

ailed to meet a disc ov ery d ead line p ro v id ed in the trial c o u rt’ s

sc hed u ling o rd e r, the t r ial c o u rt granted Carl M artin’ s mo tio n t o exc lu d e all d isc o v ery

no t p ro v id e d by that d ead line. The State ap p eals, argu ing that the trial c o u rt abu sed
its disc retio n in exc lu d ing the State’ s ev id enc e b ec au se the failu re to meet a c o u r timp o sed d ead line d oes no t by itself establish bad f a i t h and bec au se M a rtin f ailed to sho w that he w as p r ej u d ic ed by the missed d ead line. W e rev erse. W e rev iew a t rial c o urt’ s o rd er exc lu ding ev id enc e u nd e r OCGA § 17

- 1 6

- 6 f o r

an abu se o f d isc r e ti o n , and w e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s f ac tu al f ind ings f o r c lear erro r. S ta te v . Brya n t

, 307 Ga. 850, 853 (1 ) (838 SE2d 855) (2020).So v iew ed , the rec o rd sho w s that o n Sep tember 26 , 2022, M artin w as ind ic ted

f o r o ne c o u nt eac h of bu rglary i n t h e f i r st d egree, thef

t by tak ing, and c riminal tresp ass. On Febru ary 22, 2023, the trial c o u rt entered a c a se- sp e cif ic sc hed u ling

o rd er, w hic h s tated in relev ant part that “[a]ll d isc o v ery is d u e by M a rc h 8, 2023” and
that any no tic es o f d isc o very v io latio ns or m o t io ns to e xc lu de d isc o v ery w ere d u e by
M arc h 22, 2023. The State f ailed to p ro v id e d isc o v e ry by the c o urt- imp o sed d ead line,
and on M arc h 21 , 2023, Martin f iled a mo t io n to e xc lu de any disc ov ery no t pro v id ed
p rio r to the Marc h 8, 2023 d isc o v ery d ead line. M artin’ s mo tio n d id no t mak e any allegatio ns o f bad faith o r p rej u d ic e, stating o nly that he had no t r e c eiv ed any d isc ov ery at the ti m e o f t h e m otio n. On M ay 4, almo st tw o m o nths af ter the c o u r timp o sed d isc o very d ead line, the State f iled a c ertif

ic ate statin g that it had serv ed

c ertain d isc o v ery u p o n M artin and stating that “ [a]ny a n d a ll p hysic al ev id enc e

asso c iated w ith this c ase is av ailable f or examinatio n and co p ying u p o n mak ing p ro p er arrangements w ith the ev id enc e c u sto d ian. ”
The trial c o u rt held a hearing o n M artin’ s m o t io n to exc lu d e o n Oc to ber 1 8,
2023. A t the t ime o f t he hearing, no trial d ate had b een set. D u ring the hearing, the
State p ro v id ed no exp lanatio n f o r the d elay in p ro v id ing d isc o v ery bu t did no te that

2so me d isc o v ery was p ro v id e d o n M ay 4, 2023. On N o v ember 9 , 2023, the trial c o urt

issu ed a w ritten o rd er granting M artin’ s mo tio n t o exc lu d e ev id enc e und er OCGA §
1 7 -1 6

- 6 , f ind ing t hat the State had “ ac ted in bad faith by vio lating th[e] Co urt’ s d irec t

o rd er by f ailing to t imely p ro d u c e the d isc o v e ry to [M a rtin] or to seek an extensio n to
p ro d uc e the d isc o v er y o r t o sho w go o d c a u se w hy it failed to d o so . ” T his ap p eal
f o llo w ed

. The State argu es that the trial c ou rt erred in f ind ing t hat it ac ted in bad f aith and
that M artin was p rej u d i c e d

. A l t h o u gh w e f ind no thing in the rec o r d to j ustif y the
State’ s f ailu re to ad here to t he c o u rt- imp o s ed d isc o very d ead line, neither do w e f ind

ev id enc e o f

bad f aith. A b sent su c h ev id enc e , the trial c o urt’ s o r d er c anno t stand

. Und er Geo rgia’ s rec ip ro c al d isc o v ery statu te, 1 “ [t]he p ro sec u ting a t to rney shall, no t l a t e r t h a n ten d ays p rio r to trial, o r at su ch t ime as t he c o urt o rd ers,”
d isc lo se and mak e av ailable to t he d e f end a nt c ertain statu t o ry d isc o v ery. See OCGA § 1 7 -1 6

- 4 (a) ( 1 ). “ I f [ a p arty] f ails to c o mp ly w ith its statu to ry d isc o v ery o b ligatio ns, the trial c o u rt h a s d isc retio n u nd er OCGA § 17

- 1 6

- 6 to f ashio n an ap p ro p riate
remed y. ” ( C itatio n o mitted

. ) Ha wki n s v. S t a te , 304 Ga. 29 9 , 305 (4) ( b) (81 8 SE2d

1 The State c onc e d es that the rec ip ro c al d isc o very ru les ap p ly to this c ase.
351 3) (201 8). “The p u rp o se is tw o f o ld : to d e ter the State f

r om v io lating its d isc o v ery

o bligati o n s a nd to co rrec t the p rej u d ic e to d ef end ants c au s ed by su c h v io latio ns. ”
Ma rs ha ll v . S ta te , 230 Ga. Ap p . 1 1 6 , 1 18 (49 5 SE2d 585) (1 9 9 8). OCGA § 1 7

- 1 6

- 6
p ro v id es in p art that if t he S t a t e f a i ls to c o mp ly w ith its o bligatio ns u nd er the

rec ip ro c al d isc ov ery p r o v isio ns o f OCGA § 1 7

- 1 6

- 1 et seq. , the c o urt may o rd er t he state t o permit the d isc o v ery or insp ec tio n, interv iew o f the w itness, grant a c o n t i n u a n c e, or, u po n a s ho wi n g o f p r ej u di ce a n d b a d fa i th, pro hi

bi t the sta te fro m i

n tro du ci n g the ev id e n c e n o t di s clo s ed o r p resenting the w itness no t d isc lo s ed , o r may e nter su c h o ther
o rd er as it d eems j u st u nd er the c irc u mstanc es. (Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) “ Exc lu sio n of ev id enc e p u rsu ant to OCGA § 1 7

- 16

- 6 i s a
p ar ti c u larly harsh sanc t io n t hat sho u ld be imp o sed o nly w here there is a sho w ing o f
bad f aith b y th e party that has f ailed to c o mp ly w ith its d isc o v ery o bligatio n and
p rej u dic e to t he o ther p arty. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Brya n t , 307 Ga. at 853 (1 ).
A p arty’ s f

ailu re to timely p r o v id e d isc o v ery to ano t her p arty, w itho ut mo re, is
insu f f ic ient t o sho w bad f

aith. S e e Phi

lli ps v . S t a te , 347 Ga. A p p . 147 , 152 (2) (81 7 SE2d 7 1 1 ) (201 8). This is bec au s e “ [i]nherent in the c o nc ep t o f bad f aith is so mething

4mo re t han negligenc e. ” Brya n t , 307 Ga. at 854 (2). While d eliberate failu re to c o mp ly

w ith d ead lines may c o nstitu te bad f aith, f ailu r e to c o mp ly “ d u e mere l y t o a l a c k o f

o rganiz atio n and pro p er c ommu nic atio n, su c h as t hat resu lting f ro m staf f t urno v e r”
may a mo u nt o nly to mer e n e g l i g e nc e. I d. at 855 (2). I n this c ase, the State pro v id ed

no exp lanatio n f

or its v io latio n o f

the trial c o u rt’ s d isc o v e ry d ead line, and there w as

no o t her ev id enc e o n t his p o int. Thu s , there w a s a n absenc e o f e v id enc e o n the c ritic al
issu e in the c ase, i. e. , w hether the State’ s v io latio n o f the co u rt o rd e r w as the resu lt

o f bad f aith, negligenc e , o r so me o ther c au s e. W hile the State’ s f ailu re to exp lain its

c o nd u c t m ay hav e legitimately fru strated the trial co u rt and j u stif ied ano t her remed y,

see e. g. , Ma rs

h a ll , 230 Ga. A p p . at 1 1 8 (2), exc lu sio n of t he State’ s ev id e nc e w as no t

au tho riz ed

. B ec au se M artin had the bu rd en t o sho w bad f a ith, see Green v. S ta t

e , 307 Ga.
1 7 1, 1 7 2 (1 ) (835 SE2d 238) (201 9 ), a nd he f ailed to c arry that bu rd en, the trial c o u rt’ s

exc lu sio n o f the State’ s ev id enc e w as erro r, and w e mu s t rev erse. See Phi lli ps v . S ta te , 347 Ga. A p p . 1 47 , 1 53 (81 7 SE2d 7 1 1 ) (201 8) (no sho w ing o f b ad f aith w here State w as

u nable to sho w that d ef

ense c o u nsel mad e any ef f o rt to hid e ev id enc e).
Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Mi

ller, P. J. , a n d Ma rkle, J. , co n cu r .

5