Si alguien es acusado de un crimen, tiene derecho a saber quiénes son los testigos en su contra. Si el juez permite que se llame a un testigo que no estaba en la lista, pero el acusado ya lo conocía, no es un problema.
Es como si en un partido de fútbol, el equipo contrario decide incluir a un jugador extra. Si ya conocías al jugador porque lo has visto jugar antes, no te sorprende y puedes seguir jugando sin problema.
Imagina que Carlos es acusado de robar una tienda. Durante el juicio, el fiscal llama a una testigo que no estaba en la lista, pero Carlos ya había escuchado de ella en el informe policial. Como sabía quién era, el juez decide que no hubo injusticia y permite que testifique.
hat the defendant was denied access to the witness. Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351 , 314 S.E.2d 621 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S. Ct. 229 , 83 L. Ed. 2 d 158 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-110 ). Failure to include witness's name harmless error. - Prosecution's failure to include witness's name on written list of witnesses submitted to defense is harmless error since the defendant received oral notice and did not claim to be unfairly surprised. Logan v. State, 170 Ga. App. 809 , 318 S.E.2d 516 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 17-7-110 ). Although the appellants contended that the trial court erred in allowing the state to call four witnesses whose names had not appeared on the list of witnesses provided by the state, including the forensic chemist from the State Crime Laboratory who had analyzed some cocaine, plus three chain-of-custody witnesses, the failure to list these witnesses resulted in no prejudice to either of the appellants. At the time of their arraignment, both appellants were presented with a copy of the crime lab report stating the results of the chemical analysis of the cocaine, and this report disclosed both the identity and the involvement not only of the crime lab expert but also of two of the three chain-of-custody witnesses. As for the third chain-of-custody witness, a file clerk at the police station who had logged the contraband into the evidence room, the trial court allowed the appellants an opportunity to interview the clerk
Si el juez permite que ese testigo testifique y tú ya sabías quién era, generalmente no se considera un error que afecte tu caso.
Puedes intentar hacerlo, pero si el juez determina que no te perjudica, es probable que permita que testifique.
Se refiere a un error que no afecta el resultado del juicio, como el hecho de no incluir un testigo en la lista si ya conocías su identidad.
¿Necesita ayuda para analizar su caso?
Seguir Investigando →