Opinion ID: 852535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimonies of Dr. Haskins and Dr. Olvera

Text: The State contends that the post-conviction court erred when it allowed Dr. Olvera and Dr. Haskins to testify despite McManus' apparent failure to list Dr. Haskins on the final witness list and to respond timely to the State's discovery requests. Trial and post-conviction courts are given wide discretion in discovery matters and in determining what constitutes substantial compliance with discovery orders, and we will affirm their determinations as to violations and sanctions absent clear error and resulting prejudice. Dye v. State, 717 N.E.2d 5, 10-11 (Ind.1999). While the State has not articulated specific prejudice as a result of McManus' tardiness in listing Dr. Haskins as a witness or in tendering the doctors' reports, it is difficult to make such a showing when an opponent does not tender important evidence until a week before trial. The court afforded the State a chance for a continuance, but bringing a capital post-conviction case to a hearing at all is a challenging matter. In any event, the testimonies of Dr. Haskins and Dr. Olvera were not particularly harmful to the State's case. While the post-conviction court might have ruled otherwise, this departure from the case management order and the subsequent admission of the doctors' testimonies do not seem like grounds for reversal.