State of Missouri v. Danielle Ann Zuroweste, 570 S.W.3d 51

Police stopped Zuroweste after a domestic disturbance; officers seized a plastic baggy with white residue (lab later showed methamphetamine) and paraphernalia; Zuroweste was arrested and jailed.
Defendant made recorded jailhouse telephone calls; one call (Sept. 26, 2015) contained inculpatory statements (e.g., “I’ve learned my lesson,” “I know it’s wrong”).
Zuroweste served a written discovery request seeking recorded statements on June 10, 2016; the State did not disclose the Sept. 26 recording until four days before trial (20 minutes before the last business day).
Zuroweste moved pretrial to exclude the recording as a discovery-sanctioned remedy but did not request a continuance; the court admitted the recording over objection; jury requested and replayed the tape and convicted Zuroweste of felony meth possession.
On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court held the State committed a discovery violation under Rule 25.03(C) (failure to use diligence to obtain recordings from jail), but affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing exclusion when a continuance — which Zuroweste never sought — would have remedied prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated discovery rules by late-disclosing the jail call	State argues it had no duty because recordings were not in prosecutor’s possession until shortly before trial	Zuroweste says Rule 25.03(C) required the State to use diligence to obtain recordings from jail and disclose within Rule 25.02 timelines	Court: Violation occurred; Rule 25.03(C) imposes an affirmative duty to retrieve material in other governmental custody (Merriweather) and disclosure was untimely under Rule 25.02
Whether exclusion of the recording was required as a sanction	State: disclosure was timely upon possession; mitigation available (other remedies)	Zuroweste: recording was inculpatory, highly prejudicial, and late disclosure prevented preparation; exclusion warranted	Court: Exclusion is drastic; because defendant never requested a continuance and did not show fundamental unfairness or specific prejudice, trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the tape
Whether failure to request continuance waives prejudice from late disclosure	N/A (State emphasized defendant had opportunity to seek relief)	Zuroweste: argued continuance not always an adequate remedy where surprise irreparably cripples a defense (citing cases)	Court: Failure to seek continuance undermines claim of prejudice; continuance would have remedied the late disclosure here, so no fundamental unfairness shown

State v. Merriweather, 294 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. banc 2009) (Rule 25.03(C) imposes affirmative duty to obtain records from other governmental personnel)
State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1992) (discovery rules are mandatory and not mere etiquette)
State v. Bucklew, 973 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. banc 1998) (disclosure duty is continuing)
State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734 (Mo. banc 1997) (denial of sanction is abuse of discretion only when admission causes fundamental unfairness)
State v. Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. banc 2002) (fundamental unfairness requires genuine surprise preventing meaningful preparation)
State v. Royal, 610 S.W.2d 946 (Mo. banc 1981) (continuances are appropriate remedy for late disclosures; exclusion is drastic)
State v. Henderson, 410 S.W.3d 760 (Mo. App. 2013) (failure to produce defendant’s own statement is uniquely prejudicial)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusion/suppression is a drastic remedy with significant costs; deterrence must outweigh those costs)
State v. Scott, 479 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1972) (confessions/statements often core of State’s case; late disclosure can render trial fundamentally unfair)