AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The State sought to include testimony from Ms. Divine Alcanzo in a case against Defendant Ashley Le Mier. The district court excluded Alcanzo's testimony due to the State's failure to comply with a discovery order, which required setting up a telephonic interview with Alcanzo for the defense. This order was a response to the State's previous failure to provide accurate information about Alcanzo and other witnesses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court improperly exercised its discretion by excluding the witness, Ms. Divine Alcanzo, from testifying.
• Defendant-Appellee (Ashley Le Mier): Contended that the exclusion of the witness was justified under the precedent set by State v. Harper due to the State's violation of a discovery order and argued that there were disputed facts that warranted further review.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in excluding Ms. Divine Alcanzo as a witness due to the State's violation of a discovery order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision to exclude the testimony of Ms. Divine Alcanzo and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, with Jonathan B. Sutin and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that the district court did not properly exercise its discretion in excluding the witness. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded that the State's conduct met the high degree of culpability required for witness exclusion as articulated in State v. Harper. The prosecution's actions were deemed negligent rather than indicative of bad faith or intransigence. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found the showing of prejudice against the Defendant to be insufficient to warrant the exclusion of the witness. Despite the State's failure to arrange a telephonic interview with the witness, all written statements made by the witness had been provided to the defense, mitigating the potential for prejudice. The Court suggested that the district court could have considered less severe remedies than witness exclusion to address the issue with the uncooperative, out-of-state witness, implying that other means were available to solve the problem without significantly affecting the trial's evidence or merits (paras 1-9).