2003 ND 41, ¶ 16, 658 N.W.2d 731. “Although the trial court may impose sanctions for a failure to comply with Rule 16, including prohibiting the delinquent party from introducing into evidence the material not disclosed under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), before the issue of sanctions becomes relevant there must be a threshold determination that Rule 16 was violated.” State v. Charette, 2004 ND 187, ¶ 16, 687 N.W.2d 484. “Rule 16(f)(1) requires only ‘statements’ be disclosed by the prosecution. ‘Statement’ is defined quite technically and tends to emphasize formal, written, or recorded declarations.” Id. at ¶ 17 (citing N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(f)(4) and applying a similar version of the subsection prior to its March 1, 2006, amendments). See also State v. Ebach, 1999 ND 5, ¶ 20, 589 N.W.2d 566 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 24] Here, the record reflects that the
holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay