Untimely disclosure by prosecution not prejudicial
Defendant challenged his conviction of first degree criminal sexual conduct based on his ongoing sexual abuse of a young girl who viewed him as her stepfather. Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony despite a discovery violation by the State. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting expert testimony, despite the State's failure to timely provide the notice and disclosures required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, noting the court's findings that the late disclosure did not prejudice defendant because he had received some discovery and had declined the continuances the court offered him. Affirmed.
State v. Gauna, A17-1904, Hennepin County.
Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.
Tags: child pornography lawyer, criminal defense attorney, criminal defense lawyer, criminal sexual conduct attorney, criminal sexual conduct lawyer, kidnapping lawyer, prostitution lawyer, rape lawyer, sex crimes lawyer, statutory rape lawyer