State v. Pilon

“In assessing the proper remedy for a discovery violation, prejudice becomes the threshold issue. Wolfe, 273 Or at 524-25. In King, we noted that the prejudice inquiry must focus on the extent of surprise and the impact of the violation on trial preparation.”

Defendant appealed from a denial of his continuance request. On the morning of Defendant's trial, the State presented two previously undisclosed police reports to defense counsel. Defendant assigned error to the trial court for abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a continuance to remedy the discovery violation (failure to disclose the police reports). On appeal, Defendant argued that his defense strategy was prejudiced and warranted a continuance as a remedy to the discovery violation.  In response, the State conceded there had been a discovery violation, but argued that a continuance was not necessary because details of the newly disclosed reports were cumulative . “In assessing the proper remedy for a discovery violation, prejudice becomes the threshold  issue. Wolfe, 273 Or at 524-25. In King, we noted that the prejudice inquiry must focus on the extent of surprise and the impact of the violation on trial preparation.” The Court held that the State’s discovery violation was prejudicial, reasoning that defense counsel was surprised by receiving the police reports the morning of trial, and therefore the information significantly affected Defendant’s charges. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.