In Emerson v. State, 988 P.2d 518, 525 (Wyo. 1999), appellant filed a motion for discovery which requested the opportunity to inspect a padlock alleged to have been cut in the course of a burglary. A discovery order was entered allowing inspection. The prosecution did not produce the padlock until three days prior to trial. Appellant immediately moved for a continuance based upon the State's delay in producing the evidence for inspection. The district court denied the motion. The Court affirmed the decision denying the continuance stating: "In this case, there is no evidence that the government purposely ambushed the defense when it produced the padlock only days before trial. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense motion that this evidence be suppressed. Moreover, Appellant has not shown that he was materially prejudiced because he was not able to examine the padlock earlier. Appellant does not now identify--nor did he identify at trial or in his motion for a new trial--who the witness might be who would allegedly testify that the condition of the lock is material. Thus, Appellant's argument is founded on speculation that such a witness may exist. This is insufficient to show that he was materially prejudiced by the fact that the lock was not produced until the Friday before trial." (Emerson, 988 P.2d at 525.)