Opinion ID: 2328505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Trial Court's Sanction for the State's Discovery Violation

Text: The trial judge has broad discretion to fashion the appropriate sanction for a discovery violation. [11] When deciding whether sanctions should be imposed, the trial court should consider all relevant factors, including `the reasons for the State's delay and the extent of prejudice to the defendant.' [12] In selecting an appropriate sanction, the trial court should also `balance the needs of society with the defendant's right to a fair trial.' [13] The trial court has discretion to cure the violation, if possible, rather than exclude the evidence. [14] Cabrera did not suffer significant prejudice from the State's discovery violation. Although the State announced only a short time before trial its intention to present the evidence, Cabrera had known for several years that the State possessed the belt. In addition, despite the State's late proffer of the evidence, Cabrera had sufficient time to secure an expert witness to rebut the State's expert witness. [15] The court granted a recess to allow Cabrera's counsel time to locate and prepare a rebuttal expert. [16] The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce the belt and patterned injury evidence despite the State's discovery violation.