Opinion ID: 844251
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Asserted discovery delay

Text: Defendant initially argues that evidence of Robin's threat should have been excluded because the prosecutor delayed discovery of this evidence. (See generally § 1054 et seq. [criminal discovery chapter].) However, although the prosecutor conceded he had failed to provide discovery of this evidence to counsel, [i]t is defendant's burden to show that the failure to timely comply with any discovery order is prejudicial, and that a continuance would not have cured the harm. ( People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 941 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571].) Defendant sought no continuance, and he made no showing that his defense would have been different had he been provided timely discovery of evidence of Robin's threat. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude this evidence on this basis.