Defendant’s injuries and scars were substantially different before January 25. Even if the injuries had changed substantially after January 25, Defendant was only minimally prejudiced because the defense had access to at least one photograph of Defendant taken eleven days after the accident, had photos taken of the injuries only one month after the accident, waited until October to have his own forensic pathologist conduct an examination of the injuries, and there was some visible bruising apparently left for jurors to observe at trial. {28} We also find that Defendant was primarily responsible for any impairment to his defense. Defendants must make an effort to discover or obtain evidence, which they are or should be aware of, in support of their defense. Id. at 564, 746 P.2d at 670 (<HOLDING>); see Sodergren v. State, 715 P.2d 170, 178
holding that with regard to the defendants claim that destruction of documents impaired his defense defendant has a duty to initiate efforts to discover or obtain evidence of which defendant is aware holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that a defendant whose fluency in english is so impaired that it interferes with his right to confrontation or his capacity as a witness to understand or respond to questions has a constitutional right to an interpreter holding that the plaintiff had an implied duty to use reasonable efforts to elicit particular business and to hand it over to the defendant holding defendant owes a duty to disclose where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff