Francis, Tracy Blaine, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 635

Appellant Tracy Blaine Francis was convicted of aggravated robbery (use of a "knife") and sentenced to 75 years.
A pretrial discovery order required the State to allow inspection of all physical evidence, including weapons.
On the first day of trial, after jury selection, defense counsel first saw a large machete the State intended to introduce; the indictment alleged a "knife."
The prosecutor said she had received the machete from the victim earlier but believed its existence was reflected in the State file; defense had not been given an opportunity to inspect it before trial.
Trial court granted a short continuance for defense to inspect the machete, denied defendant's request to exclude it, and the machete and victim testimony about it were admitted.
The court of appeals upheld admission, finding no abuse of discretion; this Court granted review and affirmed, holding exclusion is required only for willful discovery violations and the trial court reasonably could credit the prosecutor's explanation and find no willfulness or prejudicial deprivation of defense preparation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Francis)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether evidence withheld in violation of a discovery order must be excluded when the prosecutor failed to timely disclose a machete	The prosecutor willfully violated the discovery order by withholding the machete; exclusion is required	The prosecutor's failure was not willful; she plausibly believed defense knew of the machete from the file and produced it for inspection before testimony	Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion not required because record supports inference absence of willfulness
Whether a non-willful late disclosure that impairs defense preparation may nonetheless require exclusion on due-process grounds	Late disclosure materially prejudiced defense ability to prepare and cross-examine; exclusion or other remedy required	Trial court afforded a continuance and defense inspected the machete; no shown prejudice (no lost plea, no inability to impeach witness); Rule 403 not raised at trial	No due-process violation; remand/exclusion not required where the late disclosure did not substantially impair defense and trial court provided corrective relief

Oprean v. State, 201 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (exclusion required where objective facts showed prosecutor knowingly frustrated a discovery order)
State v. LaRue, 152 S.W.3d 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (extreme negligence or recklessness insufficient alone for exclusion; willfulness required)
Hollowell v. State, 571 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (establishing principle that evidence willfully withheld under a discovery order should be excluded)