Section 46-15-329, MCA, provides the mechanism for enforcement of discovery orders and possible sanctions. The standard of review for a court's decision regarding imposition of sanctions in such a case is whether the court has abused its discretion in allowing the material in controversy. State v. Golder, 2000 MT 239, ¶ 7, 301 Mont. 368, 9 P.3d 635.
We review a district court's imposition of sanctions pursuant to § 46-15-329, MCA, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 9, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276.
Section 46-15-329, MCA, provides a means of enforcing discovery orders. It endows the district courts with the flexibility to impose sanctions commensurate with the failure to comply with discovery orders. This discretion allows the court to consider the reason why disclosure was not made, whether the noncompliance was willful, the amount of prejudice to the opposing party, and any other relevant circumstances. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 13, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276 (citing State v. Waters, 228 Mont. 490, 495, 743 P.2d 617, 620 (1987)).
When considering the statutory sanctions provided in § 46-15-329, MCA, we must also keep in mind the guarantee in Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution, "that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to . . . the attendance of witnesses in his behalf . . ." and exercise discretion accordingly. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 15, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276.
Section 46-15-329, MCA, provides the mechanism for enforcement of discovery orders and possible sanctions. The standard of review for a court's decision regarding imposition of sanctions in such a case is whether the court has abused its discretion in allowing the material in controversy. State v. Golder, 2000 MT 239, ¶ 7, 301 Mont. 368, 9 P.3d 635.
We review a district court's imposition of sanctions pursuant to § 46-15-329, MCA, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 9, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276.
Section 46-15-329, MCA, provides a means of enforcing discovery orders. It endows the district courts with the flexibility to impose sanctions commensurate with the failure to comply with discovery orders. This discretion allows the court to consider the reason why disclosure was not made, whether the noncompliance was willful, the amount of prejudice to the opposing party, and any other relevant circumstances. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 13, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276 (citing State v. Waters, 228 Mont. 490, 495, 743 P.2d 617, 620 (1987)).
When considering the statutory sanctions provided in § 46-15-329, MCA, we must also keep in mind the guarantee in Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution, "that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to . . . the attendance of witnesses in his behalf . . ." and exercise discretion accordingly. State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331, ¶ 15, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276.