Opinion ID: 2383168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Doran's Statement Excluded

Text: In the case sub judice, the prosecutor, albeit shortly before trial, learned of Doran's prior oral statement to Detective Sparks and immediately disclosed it. See Ray v. State, 587 A.2d at 441. Although delayed production does not completely mitigate a discovery violation, it is a factor to be considered in evaluating a defendant's claim of prejudice and assessing a remedy. See Kornegay v. State, 596 A.2d at 484-85. It was considered in Doran's case. The trial judge carefully weighed the facts and circumstances before him. The trial judge noted that, at this stage of the trial, it is a close case. The trial judge then determined that the centrality of Doran's prior oral statement to Detective Sparks, in view of the evidence that had been presented to that point in trial by the State, was acute. Consequently, in the exercise of his discretion, the trial judge concluded that the State's untimely response to Doran's discovery request required the exclusion from evidence of his prior statement to Detective Sparks. The State then rested its case-in-chief.