Platt v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Platt’s convictions, holding that the late disclosure of inconclusive hair-testing results and a recorded custodial interview did not require a mistrial or new trial because Platt failed to show material prejudice or harm. The court also held that the prosecutor’s efforts to identify Platt for witnesses either did not violate the governing statute or, at most, constituted harmless error. The court rejected Platt’s cumulative-prejudice claim because the assumed errors did not deprive him of a fundamentally fair trial.