Court Opinion

ID: 9792786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:36:26.740666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:08.800600
License: Public Domain

LEHMAN, Justice,
concurring, with whom TAYLOR, C.J., joins.
I concur with the technical analysis presented by the majority. The use of the expert witness by the State on rebuttal, however, is troublesome. One of the key issues in this trial was the speed of the vehicle at the time of the accident. From the accident report, the State was aware of the speed defendant was suggesting and, in response, the State requested an expert investigate. The expert, however, was not revealed to the court or the defendant until after the defendant testified to the speed, which was consistent with the accident report.
My concern is that if this was a purposeful tactic on the part of the State, it undermines the policy discovery purports to serve. Among the policies discovery serves is the resolution of disputes on their merit, not on tactics of counsel. Further, it visits surprise on a trial judge who has thoughtfully anticipated and addressed difficult issues through the pretrial process. Finally, it presents issues for appeal which would be unavailable had the State merely presented the evidence available during its case in chief.