Mathis v. State

593 S.E.2d 944, 265 Ga. App. 408, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 569, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 130
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 3, 2004
DocketA03A2518
StatusPublished

This text of 593 S.E.2d 944 (Mathis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mathis v. State, 593 S.E.2d 944, 265 Ga. App. 408, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 569, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Smith, Chief Judge.

Brad C. Mathis was charged by accusation with one count of escape and found guilty by a jury. Mathis’s amended motion for new [409]*409trial was denied, and he appeals, asserting as his sole enumeration of error that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence Mathis’s statement to prison officials, when the State had not furnished the defense with a copy of the statement. Finding no error, we affirm.

Decided February 3, 2004. Clark C. Adams, Jr., for appellant. J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Michael E. Craig, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the State acknowledged that it had not separately disclosed to Mathis a copy of his statement to prison officials as required by OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (1). The State argued, however, that under OCGA § 17-16-6 the statement could only have been excluded “upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith,” which Mathis failed to make. We agree.

This appeal is controlled by Roberts v. State, 244 Ga. App. 330 (534 SE2d 526) (2000). As in Roberts, Mathis did not request a continuance, the State had an open file policy under which Mathis could have inspected the statement at any time, and the State did not introduce the statement until Mathis testified. Mathis “did not show he was prejudiced or the State acted in bad faith. Consequently, the trial court did not err, under OCGA § 17-16-6, in denying [his] motion to exclude” the statement. Id. at 333 (3).

Judgment affirmed.

Ruffin, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roberts v. State
534 S.E.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
593 S.E.2d 944, 265 Ga. App. 408, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 569, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-state-gactapp-2004.