Hines v. State, 313 Ga. 1

Lee Hines moved from New York into Lacharity Gaines’s Atlanta apartment; their relationship soured and Gaines told friends she was afraid of Hines.
On Feb. 26, 2003, neighbors heard a loud struggle and Gaines scream; she was found days later dead from a stab wound, wrapped in a rug.
Investigators found no forced entry; Gaines’s car was later impounded in Charlotte with a CD bearing Hines’s fingerprint; nail clippings from Gaines contained DNA consistent with Hines.
Hines was indicted in 2010, tried in Nov. 2014, convicted of malice murder, and sentenced to life; he filed timely post-trial motions and appealed.
On the first day of trial the State disclosed a previously unnamed witness, Ashley Johnson (nephew of State witness Sarah Raven), who said she had overheard Hines threaten to kill Gaines while in the apartment.
The trial court allowed Johnson to testify as a "newly discovered" witness, noting the prosecutor lacked prior contact information and that defense counsel had an opportunity to interview her; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Hines's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated OCGA §17-16-8(a) by failing to disclose Ashley Johnson at least 10 days before trial	Failure to disclose Johnson deprived Hines of time to investigate and interview a surprise witness in violation of the statute	The State had no prior knowledge of Johnson’s identity or relevant information until the morning of trial; good cause existed for exception and defense had opportunity to interview	No violation: trial court did not abuse discretion; Johnson was "newly discovered" and defense was afforded opportunity to interview
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not excluding Johnson’s testimony or granting a continuance under OCGA §17-16-6/OCGA §17-8-22	Trial court should have excluded testimony or granted continuance because late disclosure caused prejudice	Trial court properly exercised discretion: remedy not required where good-cause exception applied and defense had time to interview; Hines did not use available interview time	No abuse of discretion: court acted within its broad discretion in denying exclusion/continuance given facts and defense opportunity

Rose v. State, 275 Ga. 214 (2002) (explains witness-list rule prevents surprise witnesses and allows judge to permit exceptions with opportunity to interview)
Gabriel v. State, 280 Ga. 237 (2006) (reiterates court may allow exceptions to discovery deadlines for good cause)
Cockrell v. State, 281 Ga. 536 (2007) (OCGA §17-16-6 provides remedies for State discovery failures)
DeVaughn v. State, 296 Ga. 475 (2015) (upheld good-cause exception where State located witness late despite substantial efforts)
Norris v. State, 289 Ga. 154 (2011) (trial court’s denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Terrell v. State, 304 Ga. 183 (2018) (discusses limits on relief when defendant fails to use provided time to prepare)
Phoenix v. State, 304 Ga. 785 (2018) (confirms broad discretion afforded trial courts on continuances)