Opinion ID: 1667075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Timeliness of Evidence of Confinement

Text: Alford asserts that the trial court erred in allowing evidence relevant to Alford's confinement. The court overruled Alford's motion in limine, renewed during trial, alleging the documents were untimely provided during the discovery process and that they were more prejudicial than probative. Alford did not receive a copy of these documents until the morning of the hearing on the assault charge. However, the trial court ruled that there was no surprise to Alford because the documents were public records created in the separate first degree murder case involving Alford and the same defense counsel. Trial courts have broad discretion with respect to sanctions involving discovery procedures, and their rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [15] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. [16] We find no abuse of discretion in this case. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the late disclosure did not prejudice Alford, because he and his counsel already had knowledge that there was documentation of Alford's incarceration. Alford argues that the surprise was that the State would produce this documentation at trial. He then states, somewhat abstractly, that [o]ne of those factors defense counsel takes into account when advising clients whether to settle or proceed to trial . . . is whether or not the State has the evidence to prove a necessary elment. [17] And Alford asserts broadly that the evidence was prejudicial because, without it, the State would not be able to obtain a conviction. This is not how we define prejudice in the context of late disclosure. [10] Whether a prosecutor's late disclosure of evidence results in prejudice depends on whether the information sought is material to the preparation of the defense, meaning that there is a strong indication that such information will play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding preparation of witnesses, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal. [18] Alford does not argue that the evidence of his confinement was prejudicial in any of these ways. If evidence of an element of the offense is public record, then there is no unfair prejudice resulting from the State's failure to explicitly disclose that this evidence will be offered at trial. The defendant should expect that the State will attempt to prove its case, and the lack of such explicit notice neither surprises the defendant nor affects the defendant's ability to prepare witnesses, corroborate testimony, or assist impeachment or rebuttal.