Court Opinion

ID: 9943865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:04:11.200986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:47.091236
License: Public Domain

¶ 1 I join the majority opinion, but write separately to state that to the extent that *Page 814 
it is held that when surveillance tapes are obtained, there must always be an amendment to appropriate interrogatory answers. I disagree. As demonstrated in Dominick, there may be circumstances where supplemental answers are not necessary. Where, as here, it is argued that counsel did not have the tapes until the eve of trial, may be another such circumstance. However, I agree that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow usage of the surveillance tapes because 1) the tapes were recorded on May 19 and trial commenced on May 24 thus providing vigilant counsel ample time to disclose their existence before trial so that opposing counsel could be alerted to avoid any undue prejudice which might flow from usage of the tapes and, 2) the concession by appellant's trial counsel that appellee's trial testimony as to his physical limitations did not differ from his 1995 deposition testimony8 thus negating any surprise at trial which might have lent the tapes immediate relevance.
8 See trial court opinion page 15.