Bharadia v. State
326 Ga. App. 827
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bharadia was convicted in 2003 of burglary, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated sexual battery; received life without parole for aggravated sodomy and concurrent 20-year terms for the other offenses.
- In an earlier appeal, this Court affirmed denial of Bharadia’s motion for a new trial (Bharadia I).
- Bharadia later moved for an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on newly available DNA evidence from gloves, with a CODIS result linking the DNA to his co-defendant Flint.
- The DNA testing of the gloves occurred in 2004 (after trial) and showed DNA not matching Bharadia; the 2012 CODIS search identified Flint as the DNA donor.
- The trial court denied the extraordinary motion, concluding Bharadia failed Timberlake’s six-factor test, including failures to show due diligence and that the evidence was not newly discovered.
- This Court affirms, holding Bharadia did not show due diligence and that the gloves were not newly discovered evidence; the Timberlake factors were not all satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bharadia showed due diligence under Timberlake v. State. | Bharadia argues gloves were newly available; delay due to CODIS testing shows diligence. | State contends delay and discovery were due to lack of diligence; gloves not newly discovered. | No abuse of discretion; Bharadia failed to prove due diligence. |
| Whether the DNA on the gloves constitutes newly discovered evidence. | DNA revealed by CODIS post-trial is newly discovered. | DNA result does not show newly discovered material; delay not due to diligence. | DNA alone from CODIS does not satisfy Timberlake; gloves not newly discovered. |
| Whether the earlier non-ineffective-assistance ruling precludes later Timberlake analysis. | Inconsistent that counsel was not ineffective yet due diligence failed. | Timberlake diligence test is distinct from ineffective assistance. | Timberlake test governs; lack of diligence supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (1980) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence in extraordinary motions for new trial)
- Drane v. State, 291 Ga. 298 (2012) (strict standard for extraordinary motions; not favored)
- Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 (1984) (diligence requirement for post-trial discovery evidence)
- Garnto v. State, 247 Ga. 22 (1981) (late-discovered medical testimony and diligence analysis)
- Britten v. State, 173 Ga. App. 840 (1985) (indigence and diligence considerations; change in law noted)
- Williams v. State, 319 Ga. App. 888 (2013) (trial strategy deference; distinction from Timberlake diligence)