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 Defendant was indicted on fifteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. The case involved delays in pretrial witness interviews, including the alleged victim (SV) and the State’s expert witness, Dr. Ornelas. The State failed to ensure SV’s attendance at a scheduled interview and refused to schedule Dr. Ornelas’ interview until the defense confirmed payment of her expert witness fees (paras 1, 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 11, 2006: The court set a discovery deadline of January 19, 2007, for all witness interviews to be completed (para 4).
- District Court, March 29, 2007: The court excluded the testimonies of SV and Dr. Ornelas due to missed interview deadlines (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that SV’s interview was scheduled on the deadline due to her availability and the State’s plea bargain policy. Claimed Dr. Ornelas’ interview was not scheduled because the defense failed to confirm payment of her expert witness fees. Asserted that the defense had no absolute right to interviews and could have subpoenaed witnesses (paras 5-6, 12, 18).
- Defendant: Contended that the State’s failure to comply with the discovery deadline prejudiced the defense by preventing effective assistance, due diligence, and adequate confrontation of witnesses. Opposed the State’s request for an extension and sought exclusion of the witnesses (paras 6-7, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding SV’s testimony despite the State’s efforts to schedule her interview by the deadline?
- Was the exclusion of Dr. Ornelas’ testimony justified due to the State’s refusal to schedule her interview without prepayment of expert witness fees?
Disposition
- SV: The exclusion of SV’s testimony was reversed (paras 14-16).
- Dr. Ornelas: The exclusion of Dr. Ornelas’ testimony was affirmed (paras 17, 31).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Robles J. concurring):
SV’s Exclusion: The court found that the State’s culpability in SV’s missed interview was minimal. The State attempted to comply with the discovery order by scheduling the interview on the deadline and expressed willingness to reschedule under subpoena. The defense failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice, as there was no evidence that SV’s memory had faded or that the delay prevented trial preparation. The exclusion was deemed an abuse of discretion (paras 14-16, 51-54).
Dr. Ornelas’ Exclusion: The State’s refusal to schedule Dr. Ornelas’ interview, despite a clear court order, constituted intentional noncompliance. The State failed to seek relief or modification of the order and improperly conditioned the interview on prepayment of fees. The district court acted within its discretion to exclude Dr. Ornelas’ testimony as a sanction for the State’s willful disobedience, which prejudiced the defense’s ability to prepare for trial (paras 17-20, 25-27, 31-33).
Per Bustamante J. (specially concurring in part and dissenting in part):
SV’s Exclusion: Agreed with the majority that excluding SV’s testimony was improper due to minimal State culpability and insufficient prejudice to the defense (paras 37, 51-54).
Dr. Ornelas’ Exclusion: Dissented, arguing that exclusion was unwarranted because both parties shared responsibility for the failed interview. The defense could have sought funding for expert witness fees or subpoenaed Dr. Ornelas. The district court also failed to address the funding issue before resorting to exclusion. Exclusion was deemed an excessive sanction given the minimal prejudice to the defense and the availability of less severe remedies (paras 37, 55-60).