Court Opinion

ID: 9606326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:49:09.856195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:34.109908
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
This court has consistently refused to give “a mandatory construction” to OCGA § 17-7-110, “holding rather that the statute ‘must be subject to reasonable interpretation’ (Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 252 (196 SE2d 360) (1973)) and if, under the circumstances, the *274purposes of the statute were met, or if the relief sought exceeded the relief sufficient to satisfy those purposes, or if error was harmless, reversal was not required even though the unlisted witness was allowed to testify in contravention of the statute. [Cits.]” Huff v. State, 141 Ga. App. 66 (1), 67 (232 SE2d 403).
Decided November 25, 1987
Rehearing denied December 14, 1987
H. Haywood Turner III, for appellant.
William J. Smith, District Attorney, Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
In the case sub judice, although the victim of the previous similar crimes was not included on the list of witnesses provided by the State to defendant prior to trial, the State provided notice to defendant’s counsel, over two months prior to trial, of its intention to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for the rape and aggravated assault of the unlisted witness who testified on behalf of the State. Further, at trial, after defense counsel objected to the testimony of this unlisted witness, he acknowledged that the testimony of the victim of the previous crimes “would be the only way that [the State’s attorney] would have an opportunity to prove the prior or similar circumstance.” It is also observed that in his argument on appeal defendant makes no claim of surprise by the unlisted witness’ appearance at trial. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the purpose of OCGA § 17-7-110 was satisfied in that defendant was aware, over two months prior to trial, that the unlisted witness would testify at trial. Consequently, following the analysis traditionally applied by this court under similar circumstances, the State’s failure to include the witness’ name on the list of witnesses was harmless. See Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351, 377 (12) (314 SE2d 621).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.