Does OCGA § 17-16-23 Protect the State from Early Evidence? Insights from State v. Lim
On May 20, 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals Second Division made an impactful decision on court order precedence over OCGA §17-16-23 in State v. Lim.
Background
After his involvement in a single vehicle accident in October 2022, Woo Sik Lim was arrested and charged with three misdemeanors: DUI per sem DUI-less safe, and failure to maintain lane. The arresting officer performed a blood alcohol test after obtaining a search warrant to draw Lim’s blood. In February 2023, Lim filed for discovery demand of his blood test result and the trial court issued a case management order. The order stated desicovery be supplemented within 5 business days, and that any new evidence be provided to defense within 10 days. A month later, Lim filed a motion in limine, to exclude the blood test result as The State had failed to produce the test result in compliance with the case management order. The trial court excluded the evidence agreeing that The State had failed to comply. The State rebutted stating that the order conflicted with OCGA § 17-16-23.
§ 17-16-23 Explained
Georgia Code § 17-16-23 mandates that in criminal cases, the prosecution must disclose specific evidence to the defense within ten days of a written request, or as ordered by the court. This includes written or recorded statements made by the defendant, the substance of oral statements made during police interrogation, documents and tangible objects intended for trial use, and results of scientific tests and examinations. The law aims to ensure a fair trial by preventing surprises and allowing the defense to prepare adequately. If evidence is not supplied in agreement with the statute, it “shall result in such report being excluded and suppressed from evidence,” OCGA §17-16-23 (c). Exceptions apply to privileged information, evidence not in the prosecution's possession, and items not intended for trial use.
States Argument
The State argued that the case management order conflicted with OCGA §17-16-23, focusing on the provision stating, “If the scientific report is in the possession of or available to the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney must comply with this Code section at least ten days prior to the trial of the case.” The State contended that they had until ten days before the trial date— which had not yet been set— to provide the test results.
Court's Decision on State’s Appeal
The court rejected the State’s appeal, upholding the proper exclusion of the blood test result. The court disagreed with the State’s interpretation of the statute, clarifying that the phrase “at least ten days prior to the trial of the case” sets a minimum requirement and does not prevent the court from imposing earlier deadlines.
The court's decision in this case establishes a robust legal precedent for future proceedings. This ruling affirms that case management orders hold precedence over OCGA §17-16-23, and non-compliance with these orders can result in the exclusion of evidence. The ten day requirement listed in OCGA §17-16-23 is merely a minimum requirement that can be overruled by court order.
Contact Us Today
For a free consultation, contact the Law Offices of George Creal today on the web at www.georgecreal.com or on the phone at (404) 333-0706. We are here to help you navigate the legal system and fight for your rights.
Disclaimer
The information in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.