Opinion ID: 2102287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sanction for Discovery Violation

Text: Seward also contends that the Superior Court erred in allowing the State to introduce at trial the medical examiner's report that was not produced until approximately five days before trial. [31] Seward filed a motion to dismiss based on the discovery violation. The Superior Court held that the delay in Seward receiving the report caused some prejudice, however, it concluded that it did not rise to a level requiring the exclusion of the evidence and denied the motion but allowed Seward the opportunity to request a continuance. The court noted I think technically the State is probably not in violation of any Rule 16 discovery because the State did disclose that there was a medical examiner's report, and I think the defendant, if the defendant was really interested in actually seeing that report, ha[d] some obligation to get it. Seward states that he did not request a continuance but asserts he suffered prejudice. He does not explain, however, what the prejudice was. This Court reviews a trial court's decision whether to impose sanctions for violation of discovery rules for abuse of discretion. [32] In determining the question of whether sanctions should be imposed, the trial court should weigh all relevant factors, such as the reasons for the State's delay and the extent of prejudice to the defendant. [33] When discovery violations occur, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sanctions are appropriate. [34] When deciding what sanctions are appropriate, the court should balance the needs of society with the defendant's right to a fair trial. [35] Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court may only reverse the Superior Court's decision if it is found to be clearly erroneous. [36] As this Court noted in Doran, Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 sets forth four alternative sanctions: 1) order prompt compliance with the discovery rule; 2) `grant a continuance;' 3) `prohibit the party from introducing in evidence material not disclosed;' or 4) such other order the Court `deems just under the circumstances.' [37] Seward argues that the Superior Court should have imposed at least some sanction against the State for its discovery violation such as excluding the report from evidence. [38] It is within the trial court's discretion to cure the violation, if possible, in lieu of excluding the evidence. [39] The Superior Court reviewed the circumstances and determined that the best recourse was to allow Seward to seek a continuance. Seward declined this opportunity on the basis of prejudice without any further explanation of what prejudice he was referring to. Under those circumstances, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion.