Hines v. State

Lee Hines was convicted by a Fulton County jury of murdering Lacharity Gaines, a woman he had moved in with in Atlanta, who was found stabbed to death in her apartment. On the first day of trial, prosecutors learned that a witness, Ashley Johnson, had come forward with information that Hines had threatened to kill Gaines. The defense objected that the State had not disclosed her as a witness at least ten days before trial as Georgia law generally requires. The trial court allowed Johnson to testify anyway, finding the State had only just discovered her and had given the defense a chance to interview her before she took the stand. On appeal, Hines argued this was an unfair surprise. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed, holding that the trial court properly found good cause for the late disclosure and that Hines had been given an adequate opportunity to interview the witness, so his conviction stands.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness first identified on the morning of trial to testify, because the State showed good cause for the late disclosure under Georgia's witness-disclosure statute (O.C.G.A. § 17-16-8) and gave the defense an opportunity to interview her before she testified.

The ruling confirms that Georgia prosecutors can use witnesses discovered at the last minute, even on the day of trial, as long as the discovery was genuine and the defense gets a real chance to interview the witness before testimony, affecting how surprise evidence is handled statewide.

Affirmed

1. The court applied Georgia's witness-disclosure statute (O.C.G.A. § 17-16-8), which normally requires prosecutors to name their witnesses at least ten days before trial but allows an exception if the trial judge finds good cause and gives the defense a chance to interview the newly identified witness.
2. The court found that the prosecutor did not know the witness, Ashley Johnson, existed or had relevant information until she came forward on the morning of trial, so the State's failure to disclose her earlier was not a violation because it stemmed from genuine, late discovery rather than concealment.
3. Because the trial judge let defense counsel speak with Johnson for roughly two hours before she testified, and the defense did not dispute the prosecutor's account of how she was found, the court concluded the disclosure requirement was satisfied.
4. Having found no violation of the disclosure statute, the court declined to separately analyze whether the trial judge should have excluded the testimony under the related remedies statute (O.C.G.A. § 17-16-6), since that provision only applies when the State has actually failed to comply with disclosure rules.
5. The court also rejected any claim that the trial judge should have granted a continuance, noting that Hines did not use all the interview time he was given and that continuance decisions are reviewed only for a clear abuse of the trial judge's broad discretion.

• murder conviction
• surprise witness
• discovery violation
• witness disclosure
• Fulton County