In Sapp v. State 263 Ga. App. 122 (587 SE2d 267) (2003), shortly after a fatal shooting occurred, the state's witness gave a sworn statement to police identifying Sapp as the shooter. Sapp, supra. Months later, the witness was arrested on drug possession charges, but these charges were dead-docketed before Sapp's indictment for the shooting. Id. Even though dead-docketed charges could theoretically be revived, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the defendant from cross-examining this witness as to these charges, in the absence of evidence of any deal or potential deal between the witness and the state in exchange for his testimony against Sapp. Id. at 123-124. The Court noted the significance of the timing of the charges against the state's witness: "Indeed, the fact that the witness gave his statement implicating Sapp to police prior to the existence of any drug charges against the witness rebuts the notion that his testimony was somehow shaded by a deal" related to these not-yet-existent drug charges. .) Id. at 124