In State v. Krone, 182 Ariz. 319, 322, 897 P.2d 621, 624 (1995), the defendant moved for a continuance or preclusion of a videotape that the state disclosed a few days before trial. 182 Ariz. at 320, 897 P.2d at 622. The court held that the trial court erred by denying both of the requested sanctions, reasoning that either one would have cured the harm of the untimely disclosure but "the action taken -- to tell the defendant to examine the tape between the start of trial and the day it was shown -- was not adequate." Id. at 322-23, 897 P.2d at 624-25. The court explained that "a continuance would either have caused a problem or it would not. If not, then it would have given the defense an opportunity to meet the force of the new exhibit. If a delay would have caused hardship, then the tape should have been precluded." Id. at 322, 897 P.2d at 624. In State v. Moody, the court emphasized that its "determination that the video in Krone should have been precluded was based on the importance of that evidence: . . . without the video, 'there likely would have been no jury submissible case against Krone.'" 208 Ariz. 424, 454,115, 94 P.3d 1119, 1149 (2004) (quoting Krone, 182 Ariz. at 322, 897 P.2d at 624).