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

• On August 7, 2016, the Defendant allegedly shot his neighbor in the leg. The State initially filed charges in metropolitan court, but dismissed the matter almost a year later. Subsequently, the State indicted the Defendant on one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. A scheduling order was issued, setting a trial date and deadlines for pretrial interviews. Three State witnesses failed to appear for their scheduled interviews, leading to a motion by the Defendant to exclude these witnesses from trial. The district court granted this motion (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued against the exclusion of the three witnesses, contending that the district court did not properly consider the Harper factors, which are required for the sanction of witness exclusion (para 7).
• Defendant: Moved to exclude the three witnesses due to the State's failure to make them available for pretrial interviews in accordance with the scheduling order (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the three State’s witnesses (para 7).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to exclude the three State's witnesses was affirmed (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi writing the opinion, and Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Michael D. Bustamante concurring, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses. The court reasoned that the State did not raise issues with the deadlines at the scheduling conference, failed to provide good cause for an extension, and did not meet its obligations to schedule and complete the interviews in a timely manner. The court also found that granting the State's request for an extension would have prejudiced the Defendant by truncating other pretrial deadlines and delaying the trial. The court concluded that the district court had sufficiently considered the Harper factors as modified by State v. Le Mier, and that the exclusion of witnesses was a justified sanction for the State's failure to comply with the scheduling order (paras 7-13).