Opinion ID: 2630026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Dr. Murray's Testimony

Text: [¶ 10] Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶ 39, 67 P.3d 1207, ¶ 39 (Wyo.2003). We will not disturb such rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when it is shown that the trial court reasonably could not have concluded as it did. Hannon v. State, 2004 WY 8, ¶ 13, 84 P.3d 320, ¶ 13 (Wyo.2004). We will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Hilterbrand v. State, 930 P.2d 1248, 1250 (Wyo.1997). [¶ 11] Mr. Luedtke claims the district court abused its discretion when it allowed Dr. Murray to testify. Mr. Luedtke argues that he was ambushed by the State because the State failed to disclose Dr. Murray's identity prior to the morning of trial. He contends that he was prejudiced because he did not have an opportunity to adequately prepare for Dr. Murray's testimony. Mr. Luedtke also asserts that Dr. Murray's surprise testimony prejudicially impacted his trial strategy. [¶ 12] Mr. Luedtke does not claim that the State failed to comply with any order of the court for designating witnesses. No such order was entered. Additionally, Mr. Luedtke does not direct us to any legal authority which required the State to file a list of witnesses absent a court order requiring witness designation. We also note the original witness list was filed on January 22, 2004four days before the scheduled start of the trial. Mr. Luedtke does not claim any prejudice resulting from the timing of the filing of the initial witness list. [¶ 13] The State concedes that Dr. Murray was not identified on its initial list. According to the State, Dr. Murray's name was omitted from the initial list because it did not know of the existence of Dr. Murray. In its original list, the State identified Jim Brown as the pharmacist. In the course of trial preparation on Friday, January 23, 2004, the State learned that Mr. Brown was a pharmacy technician. Mr. Brown advised the State that Dr. Murray was the pharmacist on duty at the time Mr. Luedtke presented the prescription. The following business day, Monday, January 26, 2004, the State served Mr. Luedtke with its amended witness list in which it identified Dr. Murray as the pharmacist and changed Mr. Brown's designation to pharmacy technician. [¶ 14] Mr. Luedtke received the amended witness list prior to the commencement of trial. He did not request a continuance. The State mentioned Dr. Murray as a potential witness in voir dire and during its opening statement. Mr. Luedtke did not raise any objection. On at least two occasions prior to the State calling its first witness, the court asked counsel if there were any additional issues that the court needed to address. Mr. Luedtke made no mention of any issues relating to Dr. Murray. [¶ 15] Mr. Luedtke waited until Dr. Murray was called as the State's first witness to bring the matter to the court's attention. When Dr. Murray was called as a witness, the following exchange occurred: [PROSECUTOR]: Thank you, Your Honor. The State of Wyoming would first call Mr. [sic] Patrick Murray.    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, before this witness testifies  THE COURT: One moment, Counsel. (The following proceedings were held at the bench between the Court and counsel, out of the hearing of the jury:) [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, as the Court notes, I was advised of this witness this morning just prior to jury selection. So I would object to this witness as I haven't had any time to prepare. I haven't had any statements from this witness, and I don't know what this witness would testify about. So I object. THE COURT: All right. Are there any statements that witnesses have given to the State? [PROSECUTOR]: No. THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule the objection. [PROSECUTOR]: Other than I've interviewed him in preparation for his testimony. But as far as testimony being given to law enforcement, no. THE COURT: All right. Okay. There's [sic] no statements given to the law enforcement? [PROSECUTOR]: No, there are none from any of the witnesses except for Officer Jones. THE COURT: All right. I will overrule the objection. [¶ 16] Mr. Luedtke does not claim that the State was aware that Dr. Murray was a potential witness prior to January 23, 2004. The thrust of Mr. Luedtke's claim of ambush is that the State should have disclosed its intent to call Dr. Murray on Friday or Saturday rather than Monday. Mr. Luedtke attempts to bolster his claim of prejudice by asserting that Dr. Murray's testimony was critical to the State's case. [¶ 17] The legal proceeding against Mr. Luedtke was initiated on July 30, 2003. In his Affidavit Supporting Complaint filed on that date, Officer Jones identified the prescription at issue, the pharmacy (Bi-Rite Drug) and the physician's assistant who issued the prescription. The affidavit mistakenly identified Mr. Brown as the Bi-Rite Pharmacist. [¶ 18] In its original witness list, the State identified Mr. Brown as a potential witness. The designation stated: 3. Jim Brown, Pharmacist, formally employed by Bi-Rite Drug. Such witness may offer testimony as an expert witness, and would testify that the prescribed medication, Meperidine, is a Schedule II controlled substance. [¶ 19] On January 23, 2004, while interviewing Mr. Brown, the State learned that he was not the pharmacist on duty at the time of the incident. Mr. Brown advised the State that he was a pharmacy technician and identified Dr. Murray as the pharmacist. On the next business day, the State served defense counsel with its amended witness list. [¶ 20] We have previously recognized the general rule that the State cannot intentionally withhold the identity of a witness from the defense. Jackson v. State, 522 P.2d 1286, 1288 (Wyo.1974). We have also indicated that it is improper for the prosecution to engage in gamesmanship in discovery matters. Emerson v. State, 988 P.2d 518, 525 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 21] In Emerson, appellant filed a motion for discovery which requested the opportunity to inspect a padlock alleged to have been cut in the course of a burglary. A discovery order was entered allowing inspection. The prosecution did not produce the padlock until three days prior to trial. Appellant immediately moved for a continuance based upon the State's delay in producing the evidence for inspection. The district court denied the motion. We affirmed the decision denying the continuance stating: In this case, there is no evidence that the government purposely ambushed the defense when it produced the padlock only days before trial. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense motion that this evidence be suppressed. Moreover, Appellant has not shown that he was materially prejudiced because he was not able to examine the padlock earlier. Appellant does not now identifynor did he identify at trial or in his motion for a new trialwho the witness might be who would allegedly testify that the condition of the lock is material. Thus, Appellant's argument is founded on speculation that such a witness may exist. This is insufficient to show that he was materially prejudiced by the fact that the lock was not produced until the Friday before trial. Emerson, 988 P.2d at 525. [¶ 22] In this case, as in Emerson, there is no evidence that the State purposely ambushed Mr. Luedtke. In Emerson, months passed between the discovery request, the order of production and the production of the padlock by the State. In this case, the delay is one weekend. [¶ 23] The lack of prejudice to Mr. Luedtke becomes apparent when the testimony of Dr. Murray is placed in proper context. Mr. Luedtke contends that Dr. Murray's statements amounted to key testimony because Dr. Murray was the only eyewitness who could place Mr. Luedtke at the pharmacy, describe his demeanor, and testify about whether Mr. Luedtke decided to cancel the filling of the prescription. Our review of the record does not support Mr. Luedtke's contentions. [¶ 24] Dr. Murray testified that he saw Mr. Luedtke drop off the prescription at the pharmacy: DR. MURRAY: He dropped a prescription off, I do believe, to Jim Brown. Jim Brown picked it up. I saw him drop it off to Jim and bring it back to me to fill it. However, Dr. Murray was not the only witness who placed Mr. Luedtke at the pharmacy. During his trial testimony, Mr. Luedtke admitted that he presented the prescription to the pharmacy: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So you handed the prescription to Bi-Rite? MR. LUEDTKE: Uh-huh. Officer Jones also placed Mr. Luedtke at the pharmacy by testifying regarding admissions made by Mr. Luedtke: OFFICER JONES: Once he got to Bi-Rite he told me he had gone to the counter, given the person at the counter the prescription and wanting [sic] the prescription to be filled. [¶ 25] Mr. Luedtke also claims that Dr. Murray was the only witness to testify regarding his demeanor. Dr. Murray testified that Mr. Luedtke was moving around fine and that he didn't observe any type of impairment in his speech or movement. In addition to Dr. Murray's testimony, two other witnesses testified as to their observations of Mr. Luedtke. Ms. Johnson testified that Mr. Luedtke was not deficient in his mental status before he left the hospital. She testified that Mr. Luedtke was not impaired, walked with a normal gait, and his speech was not slurred. Ms. Johnson testified that she would not have let Mr. Luedtke leave the hospital if he was loopy at all. Officer Jones also provided testimony that Mr. Luedtke exhibited no signs of impairment while he was observing Mr. Luedtke. [¶ 26] Lastly, Mr. Luedtke claims that Dr. Murray was the only witness to testify regarding Mr. Luedtke's intention to cancel the prescription. Once again, however, Mr. Luedtke fails to recognize the existence and significance of his own testimony. Mr. Luedtke admitted that he told the pharmacist that he would return for the prescription: MR. LUEDTKE: [T]he pharmacist came out and hollered at me and said, hey, are you going to come back and get this. And I said yes, I am, or probably something to that effect. . . . I remember them hollering at me. I just didn't want toat that point I pretty much decided I wasn't going to come back and get it because I would probably get in trouble if I did. And I just didn't want him to be mad at me, I guess. I don't know what I was thinking but I said, yeah, I'll be back. [¶ 27] Based upon the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in allowing Dr. Murray to testify. Additionally, we note that Mr. Luedtke's failure to request a continuance provides further justification to reject Mr. Luedtke's assertion of error relating to the testimony of Dr. Murray. Meek v. State, 2002 WY 1, ¶ 19, 37 P.3d 1279, ¶ 19 (Wyo.2002).