Opinion ID: 2343191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: discovery as to kincaid (# 21)

Text: The trial court found that the Commonwealth had inadvertently breached its discovery obligations under RCr 7.24(1) and 7.26(1) by failing to produce for the defense  until the day that Scott Kincaid, an inmate at the Oklahoma State Prison testified  a letter that Kincaid had written to the Commonwealth in February 1996  approximately two and a half (2 1/2) years prior to trial. Although the Commonwealth had previously disclosed to the defense that the substance of Kincaid's testimony was that Appellant had confessed to murdering Brady, the letter contained substantial detail regarding Appellant's incriminating statement to Kincaid that had not been previously disclosed to the defense, i.e. , he admitted to me that he himself killed Frank Brady their [sic] in Kentucky by shooting him twice with a .357 while he was handcuffed. (In front) and also admitted he shot at a K.S. trooper trying to kill him. St. Clair also told me the [sic] he was going to denie [sic] being in Kentucky and that he was going to blame it on Reese. Accordingly, pursuant to the discretion that the Rules of Criminal Procedure grant Kentucky trial courts to remedy discovery violations, see RCr 7.24(9), the trial court ruled that Kincaid could relate the fact that Mr. St. Clair informed him that he murdered Mr. Brady, but that it would not `allow this witness to relate the other information contained in this letter' because the Commonwealth had not timely provided it to the defense. Kincaid testified that Michael admitted to me to killing Mr. Frank Brady and that, in the course of that conversation, Appellant had admitted to personally shooting Brady. Appellant argues that the trial court should have prevented the Commonwealth from soliciting any testimony from Kincaid about Appellant's confession to him. RCr 7.24(9) states that: If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may direct such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as may be just under the circumstances. Here, the trial court prohibited the Commonwealth from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's choice of remedy for the Commonwealth's discovery violation. See Hodge, 17 S.W.3d at 849-50.