State v. Salgado-Mendoza, 403 P.3d 45

Ascencion Salgado-Mendoza was charged with DUI after a breath test showed BAC over the limit; trial set for May 9, 2013 in Jefferson County district court.
Five months before trial the State disclosed nine potential Washington State Patrol toxicologists (one would testify); two weeks before trial defendant requested identification of which toxicologist would be called.
The State narrowed the list to three the day before trial and provided the actual witness’s name at 9:00 a.m. on the morning of trial; the toxicology lab’s understaffing contributed to the delay.
Defendant moved under CrRLJ 8.3(b) to suppress the toxicologist’s testimony (or dismiss) for governmental misconduct and late disclosure; the district court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice.
The superior court and Court of Appeals reversed, ordering suppression; the Supreme Court granted review limited to the suppression issue and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Salgado‑Mendoza's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether late disclosure of the toxicologist's identity constituted governmental misconduct under CrRLJ 8.3(b)	The State’s failure to identify the specific witness until trial day was mismanagement/governmental misconduct	Delay was caused by toxicology lab understaffing and the prosecutor reasonably disclosed the name when she learned it	Yes — the late disclosure constituted mismanagement/governmental misconduct
Whether the late disclosure caused "actual prejudice" warranting suppression under CrRLJ 8.3(b)	Preparing to cross nine potential experts created an unfair burden and impaired effective cross‑examination; defendant was forced to accept unprepared counsel or waive speedy trial	Five months of initial disclosure and public CVs gave ample time; toxicologists’ substantive testimony is largely similar, mitigating prejudice	No — defendant failed to prove actual prejudice sufficient to justify suppression
Proper remedy for discovery misconduct	Suppression (intermediate sanction) or dismissal to deter lab practice	Lesser sanctions or no suppression because no material prejudice	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying suppression; lesser sanctions remained available
Standard of review for CrRLJ 8.3(b) rulings	N/A (issue of application)	Abuse of discretion — reversal only if ruling was manifestly unreasonable	Abuse of discretion not shown; appellate reversal was improper

State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for CrR 8.3(b) rulings and need to show prejudice)
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810 (1980) (delayed disclosure may prejudice defendant by forcing choice between speedy trial and adequate preparation)
State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822 (1993) (prosecutor must notify court if efforts to obtain discoverable material from others are unsuccessful)
State v. Dailey, 93 Wn.2d 454 (1979) (governmental misconduct need not be in bad faith; ‘‘simple mismanagement’’ can suffice)
State v. Wilson, 149 Wn.2d 1 (2003) (suppression is intermediate remedy; dismissal is extraordinary)
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wn.2d 230 (2010) (CrRLJ 8.3(b) remedies include suppression as less severe alternative to dismissal)