Court Opinion

ID: 9589330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:43:40.369865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:24.486345
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring.
Defendant Reed filed a motion for discovery under Code Ann. § § 27-1302 and 27-1303. The trial court on June 3, 1981 ordered the State to give the defendant any statements, oral or written, made by him while in the custody of law enforcement authorities.
On June 23, 1981 the defendant filed a motion for continuance on the ground that the state had failed to serve on the defendant certain written scientific reports within 10 days prior to trial of the case and requested the case be continued to the next term of court. The court granted the continuance to July 20, 1981.
On cross-examination and on rebuttal the state used statements made by the defendant over proper objection by the defense counsel. I concur fully with Presiding Judge Deen that such evidence should have been excluded. A second continuance, in my opinion would not have been a suitable remedy.