In People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, the California Supreme Court addressed the reciprocal discovery statute, section 1054 et seq. "Section 1054.1 . . . ' . . . requires the prosecution to disclose to the defense . . . certain categories of evidence "in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or known by the prosecuting attorney . . . to be in the possession of the investigating agencies."' Evidence subject to disclosure includes . . . 'all relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged' . . . . 'Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered or obtained within 30 days of trial. ' Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court 'may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions' of the statute, 'including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order.' ( 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may also 'advise the jury of any failure or refusal to disclose and of any untimely disclosure.' (Ibid.) A violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836." (Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 279-280.)