Oliver v. State
2013 Del. LEXIS 52
| Del. | 2013Background
- Oliver charged with multiple cocaine-related offenses; he requested discovery of expert materials and notes,
- Bajwa, state forensic chemist, testified; his notes and underlying data were not produced in discovery
- Trial court found a discovery violation, granted an overnight recess (4:25 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.) for review, and gave a jury instruction
- Oliver was convicted on remaining counts February 15, 2011; sentenced March 25, 2011
- On appeal, the State’s rule 16 violation was conceded; the remedy of less than 24 hours review was deemed an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal and remand
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated Rule 16 by failing to disclose Bajwa's notes | State conceded violation | Oliver shows prejudice from lack of access to underlying data | Yes, violation occurred and prejudice justified reversal |
| Whether the overnight continuance was a proper remedy given the highly technical data | Notes contained complex forensic data requiring expert review | A short continuance sufficed to mitigate prejudice | Abused discretion; less than 24 hours inappropriate; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748 (Del. 2006) (discovery sanctions and appropriate remedies under Rule 16)
- Secrest v. State, 679 A.2d 58 (Del. 1996) (limits on credibility and the need for effective remedies in discovery violations)
- Taylor v. State, 982 A.2d 279 (Del. 2008) (continuance considerations for late-disclosed material; prejudice assessment)
- Doran v. State, 606 A.2d 745 (Del. 1992) (standards for prejudice and salvation via sanctions)
- Hopkins v. State, 893 A.2d 922 (Del. 2006) (duty to ensure discoverable data is identified and disclosed)