Bharadia v. State
297 Ga. 567
Ga.2015Background
- Sandeep Bharadia was convicted in 2003 of burglary, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated sexual battery; co-defendant Sterling Flint pled guilty and testified against him.
- Gloves recovered from Flint’s girlfriend’s home were identified by the victim as those worn by the assailant; initial private DNA testing during post-trial proceedings did not match Bharadia and showed unknown male/female profiles.
- State opposed further funding for testing; trial court denied additional testing and denied Bharadia’s first motion for new trial (Timberlake analysis applied then without addressing some factors on appeal).
- Years later, with Georgia Innocence Project assistance, a CODIS search was granted and produced a match to Flint; confirmatory testing of Flint’s DNA also matched the male DNA on the gloves.
- Bharadia filed an extraordinary motion for new trial under OCGA § 5-5-41; trial court found the DNA match was material but denied the motion for lack of due diligence and because the evidence was not “newly discovered.” The Court of Appeals affirmed on the due-diligence ground; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review that analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Bharadia's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Timberlake due-diligence prong bars extraordinary new-trial relief based on DNA matching co-defendant | Bharadia: CODIS match and confirmatory testing produced new, material evidence; delay excused by indigence and post-conviction discovery limits | State: Defense could and should have sought DNA testing pre-trial or during initial post-trial proceedings; lack of diligence bars relief | Held: Due diligence not shown; denial affirmed (trial court did not abuse discretion) |
| Whether OCGA § 5-5-41(c) DNA-testing statute governed the CODIS/confirmation testing | Bharadia: § 5-5-41(c) covers post-conviction DNA testing and supports relief | State: The CODIS/confirmation search here was post-trial discovery, not testing under § 5-5-41(c) | Held: § 5-5-41(c) not applicable; Timberlake factors remain relevant |
| Whether the CODIS match/confirmation constituted "newly discovered" evidence under Timberlake | Bharadia: The match to Flint was new and material and would probably produce a different verdict | State: The physical gloves and potential for DNA were known pre-trial; thus DNA evidence was not newly discovered | Held: The match was material but the underlying biological material and the gloves were known pre-trial; therefore not "newly discovered" for Timberlake prong 1 |
| Whether petitioner’s indigence or counsel’s alleged inaction excuses lack of pre-trial testing | Bharadia: Indigence and prior counsel’s choices excuse delay; post-conviction diligence suffices | State: Diligence before trial is required; indigence does not automatically excuse failure to pursue testing | Held: Indigence and later efforts do not excuse failure to pursue testing pre-trial; due diligence requirement not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (establishes six-factor test for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Patterson v. State, 228 Ga. 389 (motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence reserved where facts previously impossible to ascertain)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Conley, 294 Ga. 530 (good-reason standard under OCGA § 5-5-41(a) requires exercise of due diligence)
- Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 (litigation must come to an end; diligence before trial cannot be inferred from post-conviction diligence)
- Depree v. State, 246 Ga. 240 (post-conviction delay in obtaining evidence relevant to newly discovered evidence standard may bar relief)