Opinion ID: 2194937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Testimony of Unlisted Witness

Text: Taylor next alleges that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Steve Brooks to testify because Brooks did not appear on the State's pretrial discovery witness list. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on violations of discovery orders, and we will reverse only for abuse of that discretion. Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789, 799 (Ind. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 812,115 S.Ct. 64, 130 L.Ed.2d 21 (1994). Exclusion of evidence as a discovery abuse sanction is proper only where there is a showing that the State engaged in deliberate or other reprehensible conduct that prevents the defendant from receiving a fair trial. Id. When the State called Brooks to the witness stand, Taylor requested a bench conference and informed the court that Brooks was not on the witness list. The prosecutor responded that Taylor had taken Brooks' deposition. On direct examination, Brooks testified about footprints from the victim's apartment. Taylor did not cross-examine Brooks. After another witness testified, Taylor moved to strike Brooks' testimony because he could not find Brooks' deposition and the State could not produce it. Apparently, the prosecutor conceded that no deposition had been taken, but stated that he did not intend to intentionally mislead the court or Taylor and honestly believed there was a deposition. The trial court denied Taylor's motion to strike Brooks' testimony, but allowed Taylor the opportunity to interview Brooks prior to cross-examining him. The record is silent as to whether Taylor interviewed Brooks. However, Taylor did not recall Brooks for cross-examination. There is no evidence in the record, nor does Taylor argue, that the prosecutor deliberately or intentionally avoided telling Taylor about the witness. Therefore, the trial court was well within its discretion in ruling that Taylor was entitled to no more than a continuance. The trial court effectively gave Taylor that relief by allowing him to interview and cross-examine the witness. McDonald v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1066, 1069 (Ind.1987) (normal remedy for failing to disclose a witness is the granting of a continuance). This issue presents no basis for reversal.