Opinion ID: 1672761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objections to Documentary Evidence.

Text: Before trial and on October 1, 1981, the district court, Judge Newt Draheim presiding, filed a Trial Order For Multiple Jury Selection, apparently a standardized order that in this instance applied to ten criminal cases in Story County. Among the various provisions relating to jury selection, voir dire, subpoenas and other matters was the following: 10. Disclosures: At least five days prior to trial, the County Attorney shall disclose all available evidence that will be used against Defendant as may be required by Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 813, Rule No. 13. The County Attorney shall disclose any exculpatory evidence or information that might reasonably be regarded as potentially valuable to the defense, even if such disclosure is not otherwise required. Defendant shall give notice of any intent to rely on an alibi or an insanity defense within the time provided by law. Trial commenced October 20, 1981. The State separately offered exhibit 1, comprised of grain purchase checks issued by A.E. Staley Grain Co. deposited to defendant's personal checking account; exhibit 2, being similar checks written by Cargill Incorporated; and exhibits 3 through 18, consisting of bank statements for defendant's personal checking account from January 31, 1979, through May 30, 1980. Defendant objected to these exhibits on the confrontation ground previously discussed and on the ground admission would violate the blanket order entered October 1, 1981. In chambers, the prosecutor stated she had contacted defense counsel October 13 and offered to go over the exhibits with him. Defense counsel seemed to concede this communication was made, but took the position the documentary evidence should have been served upon him or the defendant within the time fixed by the October 1 order. The record discloses that he did not feel that he had time to examine the documents because of other prior commitments. However, with respect to defendant's bank statements, exhibits 3 through 18, the State produced evidence in chambers that copies of these documents were included with other materials sent to defendant in Colorado on March 11, 1981. Defendant's objections to these exhibits were overruled. He was granted a continuance of several hours to examine exhibits 3 through 18. Defendant argues here that trial court erred in admitting these exhibits because the State failed to comply with Judge Draheim's October 1 disclosure order. Resolution of this issue does not require us to determine whether the October 1 blanket order actually overturned the prior order specifically denying these documents to the defendant. We first note that precluding a party from introducing undisclosed evidence is only one of the sanctions available to the court. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 13(6)(c) states: c. Failure to comply. 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 with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may upon timely application order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing any evidence not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. Imposition of a section 13(6)(c) sanction is controlled by trial court's discretion. State v. Leto, 305 N.W.2d 482, 489 (Iowa 1981). Further, the reasons for failure to provide timely discovery may properly be considered by the court. Id. In view of defense counsel's unavailability to view these documents, we cannot say trial court's decision to admit the exhibits was for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Morrison, 323 N.W.2d at 256. In these situations trial court may also consider the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party. State v. Thompkins, 318 N.W.2d 194, 198 (Iowa 1982). Here no discernable prejudice appears. All of these documents should have been familiar to the defendant. They consisted of checks he deposited and his own bank statements. Even upon submission of this appeal defendant could not suggest what use he would have made of these documents had he obtained copies pursuant to the October 1 order. We hold trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence in question.