Cited by

P. 9, which states that the purpose of the discovery rule is “to give the defendant and prosecution as complete discovery as is possible under constitutional limitations.”

“When det ermining whether alleged failure to investigate constitutes ineffective “even where prejudice cannot be shown.” State v. Kaiser , (noting that we have reversed without a showing of prejudice “on occasion”)

State v. Palubicki, 7 -90 (Minn. 2005); -98 (Minn. 1995); -74 (Minn. 1979).

See State v. Jackson , -81 (Minn. 2009) (determining that even if the state violated the discovery rule, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different) ; -45 (Minn. 1982) (granting a new trial in the “interests of justice and to [ensure] that the reciprocal discovery rules” are observed by both the prosecution and defense where state failed to notify the defense of a statement that discredited the defendant’s alibi); d 552, 553-54 (Mi

See, (granting a new trial for the state’s failure to notify the defense of evidence that bore on his decision to waive marital privilege); (granting a new trial in the interests of justice for the state’s failure to disclose information concerning cul

-15 (Minn.1982) (granting new trial “in the interests of justice” despite the strength of the State’s evidence because the State failed to notify the de *480 fendant of a statement that “discredited defendant’s alibi” that the prosecutor received after defense counsel examined the State’s file); State v. Zeimet, 3

( (“[Ajlthough the evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong, we conclude that a new trial is required in the interests of justice and to insure that the reciprocal discovery rules adopted by this court are observed by both the prosecution and the defense.”)).

(ordering a new trial for an inadvertent failure to comply with discovery rules).

("Our cases require much more of the prosecution than the federal cases require and do not always insist on a traditional showing of prejudice in order to justify a new trial.”); State v, Schwantes

powers “in the interests of justice.” (conceding that it was arguable whether the defense was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, but nevertheless, awarding a new trial, “in the interests of justice,” when the prosecutor’s failure to comply with the discovery rules was clear); (awarding a new trial “in the interests of justice” because of prosecutor’s negligent failure to disclose information useful to defendant in deciding whether to waive marita

(non-disclosure induced defense tactic which resulted in admission of damaging testimony).

In view of this, the information was not hidden by the prosecutor, since it was readily available all the time.

e to disclose a police report before trial and subsequent use of it to impeach a defense witness on cross-examination was nonprejudicial violation of the disclosure rules); (delay in disclosing evidence held nonprejudicial); (failure to comply with disclosure rules held to require new trial); (prosecutor’s failure to comply with disclosure rules held to require new trial); (failure to disclose exculpatory information to defendant before trial held *639 to require new trial).

this court reversed because of discovery rule violations by the state.

Having concluded that there was no prejudicial error, we hasten to add that, “[W]e will not tolerate intentional abuses of the discovery process by the prosecutor and * * * we will not hesitate to reverse on this ground if the facts warrant it.”

“We emphasize, however, that we will not tolerate intentional abuses of the discovery process by the prosecutor and that we will not hesitate to reverse on this ground if the facts warrant it.”

which granted defendants new trials because of failure by the state to comply with the discovery rules.

For a general discussion of the rationale behind reciprocal rules of discovery