represent his actual testimony at trial, thereby violating Rule 16(a)(7). Thus, defendant argues, the trial justice should not have allowed Officer Desautels to testify. Although defendant relies solely on Rule 16(a)(7)’s requirements, we must also look to the timing provisions of Rule 16(g)(1), which states that a defendant’s request for discovery shall be made within twenty-one days after arraignment and the attorney for the state shall respond in writing within fifteen days of the request. The defendant was arraigned on March 2, 2000, yet he waited until April 17, 2000, to mail his discovery request to the state. The defendant disregarded his own responsibility to comply with the procedures of Rule 16 by filing a late request. See State v. Nardolillo, 698 A.2d 195, 201-02 (R.I.1997) (<HOLDING>). The state, on the other hand, did not violate
holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding had a right as a matter of law to rely on material misrepresentations of defense counsel that defendant would pay the policy limits holding municipality as well as employee has right to appeal hearing examiners award in district court holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16