¶19 This Court generally reviews a district court's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 16, 394 Mont. 226, 424 P.3d 273. However, "[t]o the extent the court's ruling is based on a . . . constitutional right, our review is de novo."
An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason. State v. Hudon , 2019 MT 31, ¶ 16, 394 Mont. 226, 434 P.3d 273. DISCUSSION
"[I]f the amendment is to matters of form, then under § 46-11-205(3), MCA, the court may permit the amendment 'at any time before a verdict or finding is issued if no additional or different offense is charged and if the substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.'" State v. Green, 2012 MT 307, ¶ 56, 367 Mont. 437, 291 P.3d 1144. Regardless of matters of substance or form, "'[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial . . . .'" State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 29, 394 Mont. 226, 434 P.3d 273 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA). An error is not prejudicial when it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused. See Hudon, ¶ 29 (citing § 46-20-701(2), MCA).
Where a decision on a motion in limine involves the exercise of discretion, this Court will not overturn the district court absent an abuse of discretion.'" State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 16, 394 Mont. 226, 434 P.3d 273 (citing Folsom v. City of Livingston, 2016 MT 238, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 20, 381 P.3d 539) (internal citation omitted). We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion in limine and excluding Shannon's documents.
Reinert , ¶ 17. The State notes State v. Hudon , 2019 MT 31, 394 Mont. 226, 434 P.3d 273, where the Defendant argued his blood test results were erroneously admitted at his DUI trial because the Crime Lab possessed additional information that had not been produced, in violation of the discovery statute and due process. The defense had been advised by the prosecutor of the process available to both parties to obtain the information, some of which required a court order, but had not requested it.