In State v. Hirtzinger, (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 40, 705 N.E.2d 395, defense counsel cross examined a witness about a cellular telephone call she claimed to have made. Defense counsel also asked the witness whether she had an itemized bill for her calls. She responded that she did. On redirect examination, the prosecutor introduced the bill into evidence. Defense counsel objected because the bill had not been disclosed during discovery. Upon review, we found that "the eventuality upon which the prosecution's use of undisclosed evidence was predicated--i.e., the cross examination of the witness as to the bill's existence--was sufficiently remote" so that the case fell within the rule of State v. Finnerty (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 543 N.E.2d 1233, which provides that evidence need not be disclosed if the prosecution cannot reasonably anticipate its use.