State v. Justin Lee Wilson, 349 P.3d 439

Late on June 28, 2012, two intoxicated men (one identified as Justin Lee Wilson) were seen leaving a bus, entering a Chevrolet Blazer, and driving erratically; witness Mayfield and her daughter followed and called 911.
Police located Wilson at a bar; the women identified him as the driver; Wilson refused field sobriety tests and later registered a .203 BAC; charged with felony DUI.
Defense requested discovery under I.C.R. 16(b)(6) for State witness names and statements; the State amended its witness list four days before trial to add the bar’s bartender.
The defense moved to exclude the bartender for late disclosure; the district court found a discovery violation but declined total exclusion, permitting defense preinterview and later limiting the bartender to rebuttal testimony only (if defense presented evidence Wilson drank in the bar).
On the morning of trial the defense renewed exclusion or alternatively sought a continuance to locate other bar witnesses; the court denied exclusion and denied a continuance; Wilson entered a conditional guilty plea reserving these issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bartender should be excluded as a sanction for late disclosure under I.C.R. 16(b)(6)	State: late disclosure excused by difficulty locating witness; sanction limiting bartender to rebuttal cured any prejudice	Wilson: full exclusion required because late disclosure prevented preparation and possible rebuttal witnesses could not be located on short notice	Court affirmed district court discretion; limiting bartender to rebuttal was a valid sanction and eliminated prejudice
Whether a continuance was required to allow defense to locate bar witnesses after late disclosure	State: no continuance necessary once rebuttal limitation imposed	Wilson: needed continuance to subpoena witnesses who could contradict bartender and support defense strategy	Court found no abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice shown because rebuttal limitation preserved defense’s pre-disclosure strategic position

State v. Stradley, 127 Idaho 203, 899 P.2d 416 (Idaho 1995) (counsel must make good-faith determination of witnesses for discovery)
State v. Miller, 133 Idaho 454, 988 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1999) (trial court may impose discovery sanctions including witness exclusion)
State v. Anderson, 145 Idaho 99, 175 P.3d 788 (Idaho 2007) (sanction analysis balances culpability and prejudice; court reviews discretionary sanction for reasonableness)
State v. Olsen, 103 Idaho 278, 647 P.2d 734 (Idaho 1982) (historical discussion of endorsement/disclosure of rebuttal witnesses under prior statute)
State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 685 P.2d 837 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984) (rebuttal witness disclosure issues addressed in context of prior authority)
State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984) (discusses prosecutor disclosure obligations and rebuttal witness doctrine)
State v. Smoot, 99 Idaho 855, 590 P.2d 1001 (Idaho 1979) (untimely disclosure requires showing of prejudice to show abuse of discretion in denying continuance)