Discovery; Sanction for violation; MCR 3.922 & MCR 2.313; People v Dickinson; Dismissal factors; MCR 2.313; Vicencio v Ramirez

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing only the assault-by-strangulation count, rather than all counts, as a sanction for the prosecution’s discovery violations. Respondent, a juvenile, was charged in a delinquency petition with assault by strangulation and misdemeanor domestic violence arising from assaults on BC during their dating relationship. Before trial, the trial court found a discovery violation regarding the prosecution’s expert disclosures and limited the expert’s testimony, and during trial it learned that police photographs and a police recording of BC’s interview had not been disclosed. On appeal, the court held that trial courts have authority to impose sanctions for discovery violations, including dismissal, but such sanctions must be “proportionate and just” and dismissal is a “harsh remedy” to be used “only in extreme situations.” The court next found that the undisclosed materials were most prejudicial to the strangulation count because the recording captured BC’s account close in time to that incident and the police photographs documented injuries from that event. As to the two domestic-violence counts, however, the court found no indication that the undisclosed material was actually exculpatory or materially useful for impeachment, noting that Sergeant S testified BC gave him “the same information she shared in court” and that the disclosed police report already contained the allegations used to cross-examine her. The court also noted the violations were not shown to be willful and the prosecution proposed a recess to cure the problem. Affirmed.