trial court did not abuse discretion by failing to grant sua sponte continuance after discovery violation by state when trial court provided defendant with a recess to review documents before admitting them in evidence
How later courts described this case
- trial court did not abuse discretion by failing to grant sua sponte continuance after discovery violation by state when trial court provided defendant with a recess to review documents before admitting them in evidence
- applying the Jackson v. Virginia test where sufficiency of evidence is challenged by a motion for directed verdict
- defense counsel provided opportunity to review medical records not produced by the state until the day of trial
- full concurrence as to Division 3
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result and I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 3.| However, I cannot concur fully in all that is said in Division 2.1 thin! counsel did preserve his objection to the court’s erroneous restrictior of his cross-examination regarding the immunity issue. However, anj error was harmless. The record shows counsel for Wilburn and for the State clearly established the victim’s reluctance to testify against Wil-J burn, his friend. Whether the testimony resulted specifically from use immunity or not, the jury was given evidence indicating the victim’s bias in the matter. The error committed by the trial court in failing tq remember the grant of immunity and to permit questioning on it thuj did not contribute to the verdict.