Court Opinion

ID: 9682515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:12:27.682202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:39.823931
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I must, however, express my strong disapproval of the prosecution’s conduct in failing to disclose its rebuttal witness, Dr. Schoolcraft, until “the moment he was called to testify.” Such tactics are discourteous and strain — if not transgress— the bounds of Rule 25.03. That rule provides that
the state shall ... disclose to defendant’s counsel ... (1) The names and last known addresses of persons whom the state intends to call as witnesses at .. . trial . . .
Here, the prosecution had subpoenaed the rebuttal witness several hours before he was called, and had contacted him concerning his testimony several days before he was called. Although the issue to which the witness' expertise would be applied was raised only by the prosecution in cross-examination, the record shows that the prosecution had at least tentative plans to call that witness in plenty of time to dis*522close those plans to the defense, as required by Rules 25.03 and 25.08.1
That issue was whether Dr. Childs’ testimony that defendant’s “personality disorder, other” amounted to a “mental disease or defect” and therefore would have supported an acquittal. Dr. Childs, on cross-examination, testified that the disorder was mental disease or defect. Whether defendant suffered prejudice because defense counsel was refused one or two days adjournment to prepare for Dr. Schoolcraft’s refutation of Dr. Childs’ testimony is the issue before this Court. I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the trial court’s refusal to grant the extra time did not prejudice defendant nor result in fundamental unfairness. Defense counsel never demonstrated that the extra days were essential to his case, and as the trial court observed, one doesn’t need two days simply to look in the medical books and see whether a “personality disorder, other” is a defect or not. The allotted twenty minutes seems ample for an interview of Dr. Schoolcraft regarding the limited issue he was to address. Defense counsel, furthermore, had the immediate opportunity upon redirect examination of Dr. Childs to develop his answer given in cross-examination.
Defense counsel, on motion for new trial, did not file affidavits of any additional information which might have been presented at the trial had the requested adjournment been granted. If there had been any actual prejudice it could have been shown in this way. For want of further information, I am persuaded that twenty was plenty.
I concur in the per curiam opinion.

. Rule 25.08 states,
If subsequent to complying with a request for disclosure or order of court, a party discovers information which he would have been required to disclose under the request or order, he shall furnish such additional information to opposing counsel, and if the additions are discovered during trial, the court also shall be notified.