WYOMING COURT RULES

42 of the examiner as to whether the defendant did suffer from unconsciousness, automatism, or traumatic automatism at the time of the alleged offense. The clerk of court shall furnish copies of the report to the attorney for the state and the defendant or the defendant’s counsel. (c) Disclosure of information by state. — Within 10 days after the examiner’s report is served upon the attorney for the state, but in no event not less than 10 days before trial unless the court otherwise directs, the attorney for the state shall serve upon the defendant or the defendant’s attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the state intends to rely to establish that the defendant did not, at the time of the alleged offense, suffer from unconsciousness, automatism, or traumatic automatism and any other witnesses, to be relied upon to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s witnesses relating to such a defense. (d) Continuing duty to disclose. — If prior to or during trial, a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subdivision (a) or (b) the party shall promptly notify the other party or the attorney for the other party of the existence and identity of such additional witness. (e) Failure to comply. — Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this rule, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defense of unconsciousness, automatism, or traumatic automatism. This rule shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify on the defendant’s own behalf. (f) Exceptions. — For good cause shown, the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subdivisions (a) through (e). (g) Inadmissibility of withdrawn defense. — Evidence of an intention to rely upon the defense of unconsciousness, automatism, or traumatic automatism later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection with such intention, is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the person who gave notice of the intention. Exclusion of witnesses as a sanction. — Where defendant was charged with aggravated homicide by vehicle, the district court was per- mitted to exclude three witnesses offered by the defense to testify that defendant suffered from a seizure disorder because the notice did not state with particularity the facts upon which the defendant relied to justify the defense of unconsciousness as required by this rule. De- fendant’s right to present a defense was not violated. Breazeale v. State, 2011 WY 10, 245 P.3d 834, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 11 (Wyo. 2011). Law reviews. — For article, “The Wyoming Criminal Code Revisited: Reflections after Fif- teen Years,” see XXXIII Land and Water L. Rev. 523 (1998).