Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Levy testimony

Text: ANI complains that only eight days before trial the State announced it would call a wholly new expert, Gerald Levy from Cal Worthington Ford, to testify to issues concerning Ford Motor Company's warranty coverage. We conclude from the following circumstances that ANI was either not prejudiced, or was given a reasonable opportunity to protect itself. ANI's August 26, 1994, witness list listed Ray Jaeger or designee (expert), Cal Worthington Ford, to testify on warranty issues. The State's final witness list listed a Designated Expert on Warranty Coverage from Cal Worthington Ford who would testify that the 1991 Ford Escort was not eligible for complete factory warranty coverage when ANI sold it to the McCormick family. Further, ANI's attorney complained at trial that he might have deposed Levy if he had known Levy's name and the subject of his proposed testimony. The trial court found that the State may have erred in not listing Levy's name earlier, but found no prejudice and offered ANI the opportunity to question Levy outside the presence of the jury. Had it accepted that offer, ANI could have prepared for trial or demonstrated prejudice to the court. In any event, there is no indication that ANI was not completely familiar with the issues and the substance of the testimony to be offered. We conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying ANI's motions to continue.