Opinion ID: 1198179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court Exceeded The Proper Bounds Of Its Discretion In Refusing To Allow W.P.'s Testimony Based Upon Late Disclosure.

Text: We review the district court's refusal to allow W.P. to testify due to Lamphere's late disclosure under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Stradley, 127 Idaho 203, 208, 899 P.2d 416, 421 (1995). Lamphere argues that in exercising its discretion, the district court should have weighed the prejudice suffered by the State against Lamphere's right to a fair trial, as the court did in State v. Stradley, supra . In Stradley, in discussing sanctions that were available, this Court noted that exclusion of the witness was permitted by I.C.R. 16(j), but that such a sanction was outweighed by the defendant's right to a fair trial. 127 Idaho at 206, 899 P.2d at 419. In the present case, the State did not show any prejudice, but simply stated an objection to the witness on the basis of late disclosure. In deciding this issue, the court merely stated: [T]he State has not had ample notice of this witness, and I think the prejudice, even if it were relevant, is a burden that the State need not bear. The district court did not require the State to make any showing that it would have been prejudiced if W.P. were allowed to testify. We hold that the district court exceeded the proper bounds of its discretion by failing to analyze whether the State would suffer prejudice due to the late disclosure.