Opinion ID: 1652601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying neal's motion for a mistrial based on the discovery violation.

Text: ¶ 11. Neal argues that Stewart's testimony stating that he remembered hearing the name Deano when he overheard the conversations coming from the vehicle pulled up beside him violated URCCC 9.04 I, because the prosecution did not notify the defense of its intent to use this evidence until ten days prior to trial. Neal argues that he was unable to prepare a defense for such testimony and that the tardy supplement to discovery constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The State responds that it supplemented its discovery responses as soon as it found out about the testimony and, nonetheless, that the objection is procedurally barred as being untimely. ¶ 12. URCCC 9.04 I outlines several options for the trial court to compensate the offended party for untimely disclosure of discovery, including allowing time for examination of the evidence, granting a continuance, or even declaring a mistrial. However, under the circumstances of this case, Neal had sufficient notice and was not prejudiced in any way. ¶ 13. This assignment of error is without merit.