context: Nor does it contain a proper motion or affidavit by the prosecutor explaining why the report could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence. Thus, under the rules, the trial court would have been within its discretion to deny the state's request to introduce the untimely disclosed evidence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 537 P.2d 40, 42
citation_a.parenthetical: court within its discretion ordering preclusion for untimely disclosure of defense witnesses
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Scott, 24 Ariz.App. 203, 205, 537 P.2d 40, 42 (1975) (court within its discretion ordering preclusion for untimely disclosure of defense witnesses).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 213 Ariz. 193, ¶¶ 48, 50-51
citation_b.parenthetical: no abuse of discretion in refusing to order preclusion for discovery violation involving scope of expert testimony
citation_b.sentence: But see State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, ¶¶ 48, 50-51, 141 P.3d 368, 385-86 (2006) (no abuse of discretion in refusing to order preclusion for discovery violation involving scope of expert testimony).