Here, the prosecutor represented to the court that it was not until the morning of the trial that she discovered that defendant was going to introduce evidence that he offered to pay for a medical examination, but that the police, CSD, and the mother had rejected his offer. In State v. Dillard, 100 Or. App. 645, 787 P.2d 1307 (1990), we held that there was no discovery violation when, on the first day of the trial, the defense became aware for the first time of the existence of a photograph. We said:
"Error is harmless only if it is unlikely that it affected the verdict." State v. Dillard, 100 Or. App. 645, 648, 787 P.2d 1307 (1990). Defendant argues that the excluded evidence "could have shown a lessened measure of damages" or could have allowed the jury to attribute some of plaintiff's problems to causes other than defendant's acts.