State v. Wilson, 2013 Ohio 3877

On May 24, 2012, Lloyd A. Wilson made a left turn at Tylersville Rd. and S.R. 747 and collided with Gretchen Ramirez; Wilson was charged with failing to yield when turning left under R.C. 4511.42.
At the November 9, 2012 bench trial, the state called a witness (Dan Meyer) whose identity had not been provided to defense pursuant to Crim.R. 16(I). The state said electronic discovery would generate a witness list if requested.
The court recognized the Crim.R. 16(I) violation, offered a continuance "in progress" so defense counsel could interview Meyer (but not a continuance beyond that day); defense counsel declined and proceeded to cross-examine.
Meyer and Officer Gattermeyer testified that Wilson turned in front of Ramirez and had only a green light (no arrow); Ramirez testified she had a green light and was struck. Wilson testified he had a green arrow and that Ramirez hit him.
The trial court found Wilson guilty, fined him, and he appealed solely on the ground that the court erred by allowing Meyer's testimony despite the state’s failure to disclose under Crim.R. 16(I).
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing a curative sanction rather than excluding the testimony because the violation was not willful, the court offered a remedy, defense declined it, and the excluded witness’s testimony was cumulative to other evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from an undisclosed witness in violation of Crim.R. 16(I)	State: the court’s in‑progress continuance and opportunity to interview was an adequate, least‑restrictive sanction	Wilson: the witness should have been excluded and conviction reversed because disclosure violation prejudiced his defense	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — violation not willful, remedy offered, defense declined the curative measure, and testimony was cumulative so no prejudice

State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (2013) (trial court has discretion on discovery sanctions; must impose least severe remedy and consider prejudice and willfulness)
Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (purpose of discovery rules is to prevent surprise and gamesmanship; trial court should impose least severe sanction consistent with discovery goals)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983) (factors for discovery‑sanction analysis include prejudice and willfulness)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008) (discovery‑sanction framework; exclusion is discretionary, not mandatory)