State v. Bryant, 307 Ga. 850

Bryant and co-defendant Carrillo were indicted for the 2017 murder of Shawn Rhinehart; Bryant elected reciprocal discovery.
Pretrial scheduling order required the State to serve discovery within 20 days after the status conference and any supplements at least 10 days before trial; a status hearing occurred by Aug. 6, 2018; trial was set for Apr. 1, 2019.
The State produced some discovery early, but on Feb. 21, 2019 (≈6 weeks before trial) it produced police reports and nine discs containing recordings, photos, a cell‑phone dump, and videos; defense counsel claimed additional materials remained missing.
Bryant moved on Feb. 25 to exclude evidence produced Feb. 21 or not produced at all, citing violation of the scheduling order; the trial court granted exclusion under OCGA § 17‑16‑6.
The State appealed interlocutorily. The Supreme Court found the trial court’s order ambiguous about whether the State acted in bad faith and about the basis for prejudice, vacated the exclusion order, and remanded for clarified factual findings.

Issue	State's Argument	Bryant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion under OCGA § 17‑16‑6 was proper for the State's late or non‑production of discovery	Exclusion was improper; the record does not support clear findings of bad faith or prejudice necessary for such a harsh sanction	Late production and non‑production prejudiced defense preparation and warrant exclusion	Court vacated the exclusion order and remanded for clarified findings before review of § 17‑16‑6 sanctionability
Whether the defense showed prejudice from the late/omitted discovery	The State argued the trial court’s prejudice finding was unsupported and materials were or could be duplicated or immaterial	Defense said the sheer volume and some withheld items prevented preparation and warranted exclusion	The court found the prejudice finding ambiguous (materials not in record; duplication and missing items not specified) and remanded for clarification
Whether the State acted with bad faith in failing to produce discovery	State argued failures reflected negligence/administrative issues (staff turnover, miscommunication), not bad faith	Defense argued persistent failures without justification showed bad faith warranting exclusion	The trial court’s statements were contradictory as to bad faith vs mere negligence; the Supreme Court remanded for clear factual findings on bad faith

Chance v. State, 291 Ga. 241 (exclusion under OCGA § 17‑16‑6 is a severe sanction requiring both bad faith and prejudice)
Malaguti v. State, 273 Ga. 398 (prejudice under § 17‑16‑6 must arise from the failure to comply with discovery)
Moceri v. State, 338 Ga. App. 329 (trial court factual findings on bad faith and prejudice reviewed for clear error)
Kennebrew v. State, 304 Ga. 406 (discusses standard of review for trial court factual findings)
Fincher v. State, 276 Ga. 480 (mere negligence in record keeping does not establish bad faith)
Anthem Cos., Inc. v. Wills, 305 Ga. 313 (distinguishes bad faith from negligence for severe sanctions)
Greenway v. Hamilton, 280 Ga. 652 (bad faith requires more than negligence; involves motive or deliberate breach)
Rosas v. State, 276 Ga. App. 513 (refusal to exclude where State’s failure to disclose was not shown to be in bad faith)
Williams v. State, 256 Ga. App. 249 (exclusion improper where no finding of bad faith and defense had not concealed information)