Opinion ID: 1742459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discovery deficiencies

Text: Nooner next contends that he was denied due process of law because the prosecuting attorney was impermissibly dilatory in providing the names and addresses of state witnesses, the opinion of the expert witness regarding the type of gun involved, autopsy photographs, and a diagram of the laundromat by a crime scene specialist. Rule 17.1(a)(i) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecution to give the names and addresses of witnesses it intends to call at trial, and Rule 19.2 imposes a continuing duty to disclose this information. Lewis v. State, 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). The trial court has four options under Rule 19.7 to remedy a violation of the rules: permit discovery, exclude the undisclosed evidence, grant a continuance, or enter an order as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Id. In some instances, a recess to interview the witness is sufficient. Lewis v. State, supra ; Dupree v. State, 271 Ark. 50, 607 S.W.2d 356 (1980); Hughes v. State, 264 Ark. 723, 574 S.W.2d 888 (1978). On Friday, September 17, 1993, before the trial began on Monday, September 20, 1993, the prosecutor provided this information to the defense attorneys:  Johnny Martin would testify as to the identity of Nooner in the videotape and photographs.  Two employees who worked at the Markham Liquor Store next to FunWash would testify that Russell Patton, who had been involved in a March 5, 1994 burglary at FunWash, was not the man in the videotape or photographs.  Ron Andrejack would testify that the weapon used was consistent with a .22 Ruger semi-automatic pistol.  Still photos taken from the videotape of the March 5, 1994 FunWash burglary would be introduced. A diagram of the crime scene by crime scene specialist, Lisa Sakevicious, was not provided to the defense in advance of trial; nor were autopsy photographs. The circuit court offered opportunities for interviews of witnesses whose names were provided on the Friday before trial commenced and allowed the same opportunity for reports and documentary evidence. The defense interviewed Johnny Martin during the trial before its cross-examination. The court also noted the fact that the defense had had Martin's name from the prosecutor's file for several months. With regard to the Markham Liquor Store employees, the circuit court observed that an objection to their testimony was not made until the Thursday after trial commencedsome six days after the defense was apprised of their identity and that they would testify. The circuit court ruled that was sufficient prior notice. Though Ron Andrejack's additional conclusion about the .22 Ruger semi-automatic gun was not provided until the Friday before trial, the circuit court stated that the defense had known Andrejack would be a witness for some time and had not interviewed him. In addition, the prosecutor had turned over Andrejack's opinion as soon as the prosecutor received it. The court also stated that the autopsy photographs were reasonably anticipated as part of the State Medical Examiner's testimony, which the defense knew would be forthcoming at trial, and that the crime scene diagram was an instructional aid to the jury. This court is well aware of the fact that the last minute exchange of evidence before trial is sometimes inevitable as trial preparation is brought to a head and comes to a close. The issue, however, is whether last minute preparation was abused in this matter and used as a ploy or subterfuge to gain advantage over the opposing party. See Banks v. Jackson, 312 Ark. 232, 848 S.W.2d 408 (1993). Stated another way, was there an attempt to conceal discoverable evidence from the defense? We have endowed the trial courts with great discretion over such matters, and the circuit court in this case assessed each assertion of a Rule 17.1(a)(i) violation carefully before making its decisions. The circuit court was reasonable in its resolution of these matters, and we cannot say that it abused its discretion. Moreover, this court does not recognize the doctrine of cumulative error when there is no error to accumulate. Dillon v. State, 317 Ark. 384, 877 S.W.2d 915 (1994).