State v. Snyder

A continuance is only warranted if unanticipated circumstances come about from a discovery violation. State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 117, 452 P3d 457 (2019).

Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted second-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and menacing. He appealed the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a continuance. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance to allow more time to investigate additional discovery materials disclosed by the state shortly before trial. He contended that the late disclosure of evidence created unanticipated circumstances that necessitated a continuance for further investigation, and without this time, his defense would be compromised. The Court noted that the defendant was aware of the critical information underlying the newly disclosed materials and had ample opportunity to investigate before trial. A continuance is only warranted if unanticipated circumstances come about from a discovery violation. State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 117, 452 P3d 457 (2019). The court found that the materials disclosed shortly before trial were not "unanticipated" because the defendant already had access to the information that the materials were based on and could have discovered the materials if he investigated further. Thus, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. AFFIRMED.