Court Opinion

ID: 9581569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:16:19.546468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:04.993848
License: Public Domain

*393Hall, Presiding Judge,
dissenting to Division 4. In reference to the enumeration of error in not restricting the state to the list of witnesses furnished prior to joining issue, the facts show that the defendant demanded a list on February. 12, 1973; a list was furnished him on February 28, 1973; the case was tried on March 7,1973 resulting in a mistrial; after the trial and on the same day the assistant district attorney talked with the manager of the shop and determined for the first time that she would be needed as a witness in the case; the assistant district attorney added this witness’ name to the list and furnished defendant the amended list on March 15, 1973 four days prior to the trial; the witness testified at the second trial and the defendant did not cross examine her; at the hearing on the objection the assistant district attorney gave the above explanation.
Considered in its totality, I do not think the defendant has been denied a fair trial. Four days prior to trial was sufficient to prevent surprise and in any event if there was any error here it was harmless. Evans v. State, 227 Ga. 571 (181 SE2d 845); Huffaker v. State, 119 Ga. App. 742 (168 SE2d 895). It is elementary that the appellant "has the burden to show not only error, but that the error was prejudicial.” Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Dressel, 109 Ga. App. 465, 466 (136 SE2d 525); Dill v. State, 222 Ga. 793 (152 SE2d 741).
Presiding Judge Eberhardt concurs.