Opinion ID: 2353577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Surprise Witnesses

Text: On Friday, September 24, 1981, two days into White's trial and after the State had presented most of its medical testimony, the State announced that it had just located two additional witnesses. [4] Ralph Robbins and Shirley Flye had lived above White and McKenna's apartment and were to testify that they heard White, during several arguments with McKenna, threaten the baby's life. After that disclosure, the State made the witnesses available to the defendants. The presiding justice noted that the testimony was extremely damaging to White's case and took White's objections to its admission under advisement. On Monday, the justice heard the witnesses' voir dire testimony and decided to permit the testimony to be admitted; he further ordered a continuance of the trial until that Thursday. White appeals from the denial of his motions to exclude the witnesses' testimony, for a mistrial, and for a longer continuance. Each of White's motions was addressed to the discretion of the presiding justice. See State v. Stinson, 424 A.2d 327, 332 (Me. 1981) (motion for continuance); State v. Baker, 423 A.2d 227, 231 (Me.1980) (motion for mistrial); State v. Rich, 395 A.2d 1123, 1130 (Me.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 854, 100 S.Ct. 110, 62 L.Ed.2d 71 (1979) (motion to exclude); State v. Ifill, 349 A.2d 176, 181 (Me.1975) (motion for continuance). In each case, we find no abuse of that discretion. Even with the surprise introduction of the new witnesses, White still had six days to prepare for their testimony. Cf. Rich, 395 A.2d at 1131 (a week was sufficient time to prepare for surprise witnesses); Ifill, 349 A.2d at 181 (same). Further, the presiding justice voir dired the witnesses, giving White a full opportunity to cross-examine them, and then granted a two-day continuance to allow White further preparation time. Finally, in response to the justice's request for details of how the new testimony prejudiced White's defense strategy, White gave no specific reasons but only suggested broad areas of law that might otherwise have been explored.