Jester argued on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a latent-print expert because the State allegedly failed to list the expert on its witness list (OCGA § 17-16-8(a)) and did not produce the expert’s scientific report (OCGA § 17-16-4(a)(4)). The Supreme Court reviewed that claim for plain error because Jester did not raise these specific discovery objections at trial.

The opinion explained that OCGA § 17-16-6 provides courts with a range of remedies when discovery rules are not followed, from ordering compliance to, in cases of prejudice and bad faith, excluding testimony. Exclusion is a harsh sanction reserved for demonstrated bad faith and prejudice to the defense. The court found no indication in the record that the State acted in bad faith or that the trial court was or should have been aware of any alleged discovery violations. Jester offered no evidence of bad faith, and nothing in the record suggested the trial court plainly erred by not excluding the expert.

Because the plain-error standard requires showing that an error was clear, affected the outcome, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings, the court concluded Jester did not meet that burden and affirmed the admission of the expert’s testimony.