mation provided in a specific form or manner or

to receive a copy of the officer’s notes in pre- trial discovery. Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, 208 P.3d 66, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 72 (Wyo. 2009). Trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the admis- sion of testimony that defendant threatened to kill a witness if he ever talked to the police again in violation of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)(i)(2) because the trial court in- structed the jury immediately after defendant’s objection and, in the context of defendant’s the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, de- fendant failed to show that he was prejudiced. Willoughby v. State, 2011 WY 92, 253 P.3d 157, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 92 (Wyo. 2011), reh’g denied, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 97 (Wyo. June 16, 2011). Scientific tests or experiments. — Al- though a police officer (1) inspected the scene of a traffic accident, (2) was provided with a copy of the accident report, (3) reviewed the report, photographs, and measurements taken at the scene, and (4) applied established principles of physics and mathematics to those measure- ments, there was no evidence in the record to support the defense’s claim that the officer conducted scientific tests or experiments sub- ject to disclosure under subdivision (a)(1)(D) of