Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Length of State's witness list

Text: In opposing ANI's motion to remove the case from the fast-track calendar, [10] the State wrote that, [a]lthough the state has identified 48 witnesses on its preliminary witness list, that list was furnished to facilitate [ANI's] opportunity to complete discovery.... The state will likely call fewer than 20 witnesses, since many of those listed on the state's Preliminary Witness List would offer cumulative testimony. ANI argues that the State's subsequent submission of a list of fifty-five witnesses, including nineteen experts, was a surprise and grounds for continuance. ANI's argument is misleading. The State made it clear that many of the witnesses on its list were cumulative and would not be called. This practice is not uncommon. Of the nineteen experts listed, sixteen were listed as percipient[s] and expert[s] while only three were listed as expert[s]. In its August 31, 1994, response to ANI's expert witness interrogatories, the State made it clear that Scotty Dawkins was to be its primary expert and that those listed as percipients and experts were primarily auto mechanics. Although they would be fact witnesses because of their exposure to given vehicles, they might be asked to give expert opinions about the vehicles' condition. We also note that when the superior court denied ANI's September 2 motion for a continuance it also ordered the State to pare its witness list to thirty-five names, and the State did so. [11] The length of the State's witness list did not require a continuance.