Harvey Williams, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-00844-COA
HARVEY WILLIAMS, JR. A/K/A SMOKIE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
04/06/2007
HON. L. BRELAND HILBURN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JANE E. TUCKER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
FAYE PETERSON
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF MURDER AND
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED – 01/19/2010
EN BANC.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Harvey Williams Jr. was convicted of murder by a Hinds County jury and sentenced
to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved, he appeals
and asserts (1) that the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony because of a discovery
violation, (2) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, (3) that the trial court erred
in refusing to grant the defense’s motion for a continuance, (4) that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel, (5) that the trial court erred in holding that the State would be
permitted to impeach a witness he sought to call, (6) that the trial court erred in refusing to
allow the defense to cross-examine a witness for the State regarding a prior inconsistent
statement, (7) that the court erred in granting a flight instruction, and (8) that the cumulative
effect of the errors committed at trial warrants a new trial.1
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
Williams shot and killed Calvin Younger outside of Jay’s Lounge in Jackson,
Mississippi, during the early morning hours of June 22, 2003. Donte Hill, a passenger in
Williams’s car, was later apprehended by the police. After being taken in for questioning,
Hill provided an audiotaped statement wherein he implicated Williams in Younger’s murder.
Thereafter, on December 9, 2003, Williams was indicted and charged with Younger’s
murder. He went to trial on April 3-6, 2007. His defense was that he shot Younger in selfdefense. Numerous witnesses testified; however, since Williams does not challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence against him, we dispense with a recitation of all of the facts
surrounding the crime, but we will relate additional facts, as appropriate, during our analysis
and discussion of the issues.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
1. Discovery Violation
¶4.
Williams contends that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of Anthony
1
Actually, Williams raises twelve issues for our review; however, for the sake of
clarity, we combine the related issues.
2
Herrington, a security guard who was working at Jay’s Lounge on the morning that Younger
was killed. According to Williams, the excluded portion of Herrington’s testimony would
have shown that Williams acted in self-defense. The record reflects that when the defense
announced Herrington as its first witness, the State objected on the basis that the defense had
not previously disclosed this witness to the State. The defense responded that Herrington
was, in fact, listed as a witness in Williams’s supplemental discovery given to a secretary in
the district attorney’s office on March 29, 2007, five days before the trial commenced. After
it was determined that Herrington had in fact been listed in the discovery tendered to the
State prior to trial, the trial judge allowed the State to interview Herrington outside the
presence of the jury.2 Then, the following exchange occurred between the State, the defense,
and the trial judge:
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: I’m sorry, Your Honor. The fact is we
talked to this individual. He has not given us any indication that he saw the
victim with a gun and they’re trying to use him -- well, I apologize. He did not
see the victim pull a gun on Harvey Williams, Jr. He just gave us that
statement. If he comes in here and makes a different representation, it’s up to
the Court to decide if that’s going to be allowed. He just told myself and [the
other prosecutors and an investigator] that he did not see Calvin Younger pull
a gun on Harvey Williams. And he can’t testify to that.
What he told us was Calvin Younger had a gun earlier that day, that he kicked
Calvin Younger off the premises, that Calvin Younger and -- Harvey Williams
rode up on the scene. Calvin Younger walks up to him and he walked behind
2
The supplemental discovery contains the following statement regarding Herrington:
Employed at Garfield’s, and formerly employed as security detail at Jay’s
Lounge, Mr. Harrington [sic], may be called to testify that he was working at
Jay’s Lounge on the night of the incident and witnessed the decedent reaching
in the back of his back pocket and arguing with Harvey Williams, Jr. He will
also testify that he did not witness police crime scene investigators searching
the parking lot or the area immediately adjacent to the club, near the street.
3
the car and he doesn’t see anything. He does not stop. Then the next thing he
hears are gunshots. He had no knowledge that Calvin Younger pulled a gun
on Harvey Williams. No knowledge of that, according to his representation
to myself, [the other prosecutors and a detective]; therefore, his testimony is
irrelevant to this case.
The fact that Calvin Younger had a gun prior to this does not show that Mr.
Williams knew -- first, he has to know -- have knowledge of imminent danger
to his life. If he does not know that then there’s no relevance to this
individual’s testimony based on the fact that he did not see Mr. Younger pull
a gun on Mr. Williams.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: Well, I spoke to him today too
because it’s the first time I have actually met him was today. And the way I
understood his testimony -- I don’t know what he’s going to say when he gets
on the stand.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: Well, that’s the problem, Your Honor.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: That’s why I requested a
continuance. That is the problem. You’re exactly right. That is a problem.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: But you only found him on last Tuesday.
[ATTORNEY THE DEFENDANT]: Excuse me?
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: You only found him Tuesday.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: I only found him Tuesday?
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: He told us that you -- Max Mayes3 called
him last week.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: I apologize, Your Honor.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: Do you want me to tell you what
he told me today?
THE COURT: Yes.
3
Mayes is an investigator.
4
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: What he told me today was, if I
remember correctly, is that that night Calvin Younger and his crew came to the
club. He had a gun, if I can -- somewhere, I think in this area. And he
wouldn’t allow them [sic] him in the club; that Calvin Younger then went
toward Charlie’s which was a club next door going north in that area with his
crew; that when Mr. Williams drove up -- he saw Mr. Williams park in the
middle lane, the turning lane of the [sic] Medgar Evers going south, which is
what he said, and that at that -- when Mr. Williams got out of the car, came
across the street walking up between cars, going toward the front door of
Jay’s; that he saw Calvin Younger coming from the area of Charlie’s talking -moving his hands talking and that at some point he made a motion toward the
back -- his back pocket. I’m actually trying to remember everything. And at
this point I can’t tell you if he even said that he saw him actually shoot. I don’t
think he said he saw him shoot the gun but the inference was that he had a gun,
he carried it in the back. He may have even said in the small of his back.
THE COURT: Where are your discovery responses?
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: The court can read them but none of that
is in there.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT]: And I didn’t have that until today
and I don’t even have it now.
[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: The individual did inform us that he gave
a statement to Max Mayes and knowing how Mr. Max handles his
investigations from working in our office, Max Mayes takes notes on
everything. For her not to have those notes seems like something may be
missing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, the certificate of the attorney for the defendant states that
on the 29th day of March, 2007, the document was delivered to the District
Attorney’s Office. Of course, accepting that as [sic] face value, I find that the
attorney’s certificate is sufficient to establish that there was compliance,
although somewhat late in time with the discovery requirement under the
uniform circuit and county court rule 9.04.
However, the statement contained in the discovery states that the witness will
testify as to the reaching in the back pocket, arguing with Harvey Williams,
and that witnesses on the crime scene did not -- the police on the crime scene
did not search the parking lot immediately adjacent to the club or near the
street. And the court is going to restrict the testimony of this witness to those
matters, in fact, set forth in answering questions outside the scope of the
5
discovery provided to the State.
¶5.
In Morris v. State, 927 So. 2d 744 (Miss. 2006), the Mississippi Supreme Court
reinstated the judgment of the circuit court and reversed this Court’s decision, which had
reversed Christopher Morris’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial,
because the trial judge prohibited the testimony of critical defense witnesses. Morris was
charged with simple assault on a law enforcement officer. Id. at 745-46 (¶2). On the day that
his trial was set to begin, his attorney presented the State with a list of witnesses for the first
time. Id. at (¶3). The State made an ore tenus motion to exclude the previously undisclosed
defense witnesses. Id. The State argued that it was prejudiced by the defense’s late
disclosure, as it had no way of knowing what the proposed witnesses might testify to. Id.
Thereafter, the trial judge allowed the defense to proffer each of the witnesses’ testimonies.
Id. The trial judge then allowed some witnesses to testify while refusing others. Id. On
appeal, Morris argued that the trial court erred in disallowing the testimony of two of the
witnesses. Id. at (¶6).
¶6.
Although the supreme court reversed this Court, it agreed with this Court’s finding
that the issue presented was one which implicated the Compulsory Process Clause of the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the “[t]he Compulsory Process Clause
bestows upon a criminal defendant ‘the right to compel the presence and present the
testimony of witnesses.’” Id. at 747 (¶7) n.1 (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409
(1988)). The Morris court stated that:
In criminal cases which have issues pertaining to the exclusion of evidence or
witnesses due to discovery violations, we look to Mississippi Rule of Uniform
Circuit and County Court Practice 9.04(I), which provides that, if, prior to
6
trial, the circuit court is made aware of one party’s failure to comply with an
applicable discovery rule, it has the discretion to allow such evidence to be
presented at trial, to grant a continuance, or to enter such an order as it deems
just under the circumstances. If the circuit court determines that the
defendant’s newly-discovered evidence or witnesses are prejudicial to the
State, the State must ask for a continuance so that it may review the evidence
or interview the witnesses and thus become prepared to counter the same.
Even if the State does not ask for a continuance, the circuit court cannot
exclude the evidence. Carraway v. State, 562 So. 2d 1199, 1203 (Miss. 1990).
To do so would be to violate the Compulsory Process Clause.
There is an exemption to this procedure, however: if the circuit court
determines that the “defendant’s discovery violation is ‘willful and motivated
by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage,’” the newly-discovered evidence or
witnesses may be excluded. Id. at 1203 (quoting Darby v. State, 538 So. 2d
1168, 1176 (Miss. 1989)); see also Taylor, 484 U.S. at 415, 108 S. Ct. 646.
We find Morris’s discovery violation was willful and motivated by a desire to
obtain a tactical advantage, and therefore the circuit court, even though it did
not use the proper procedure, properly excluded the evidence. The only
reason proffered by Morris for failure to designate these witnesses sooner was
the police department’s failure to find these witnesses and give the names to
Morris through discovery. The record shows that, while defense counsel had
two hearings in federal court the week prior to Morris’s trial, defense counsel
had represented Morris since the arraignment which was held approximately
six weeks prior to the trial. Morris violated the discovery rule by failing to
give the State the defense’s witness list when the State provided its list to
defense counsel. Defense counsel waited until the weekend prior to the trial,
which began on a Monday, to find defense witnesses. Finally, and most
importantly, instead of giving the list of defense witnesses to the State one or
two days prior to trial, defense counsel waited until the morning the trial
began. To blame the prosecution or the police department for his own failure
to investigate and failure to abide by the discovery rules is disingenuous at
best. This issue is without merit.
Id. at (¶¶8-9) (emphasis added).
¶7.
It is noteworthy that the trial judge in Morris did not give a reason as to why he
disallowed the testimonies; nevertheless, the supreme court found the violation to be “willful
and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage” and concluded that the trial judge
did not err in denying the defense the right to call them. Id. at (¶9).
7
¶8.
While our facts differ from those in Morris, we believe that Morris is helpful. As in
Morris, the trial judge gave no specific reason for his ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the
trial judge here did not find that Williams’s failure to include in his disclosure to the State
all of what Herrington purportedly would testify to at trial was willful and motivated by a
desire to obtain a tactical advantage. Yet, the trial judge limited Herrington’s testimony to
essentially what had been disclosed to the State. Williams sought to have Herrington testify
that Herrington had turned Younger away from the club after seeing Younger with a gun.
This information was not contained in the summary of Herrington’s testimony that was
provided to the State in the supplemental discovery.4 It is not unreasonable for the trial judge
to have concluded that the defense disclosed only a portion of what Herrington would have
testified to, willfully withholding the rest for the purpose of attempting to gain some sort of
tactical advantage.5
4
Had Herrington been allowed to testify about the encounter with Younger, it is not
clear exactly what his testimony would have been. As noted in the exchanges between the
court and the attorneys, the attorneys for the State indicated that Herrington said that
Younger had a gun earlier that day and that he kicked Younger off the premises. No time
line was given as to when this occurred in relationship to the encounter between Younger and
Williams. The State’s attorneys also indicated that Herrington told them that he did not see
Younger pull a gun on Williams and that he had no knowledge that Younger pulled a gun on
Williams. On the other hand, the defense attorneys indicated that Herrington told them that
Younger and his crew came to the club, that Younger had a gun, that he wouldn’t allow him
in the club, and that Younger then went toward Charlie’s which was a club next door. The
defense attorneys further stated that Herrington told them that when Williams drove up, got
out of his car, and came across the street walking up between cars going toward the front
door of Jay’s, he saw “Younger coming from the area of Charlie’s talking -- moving his
hands talking. . . .” Clearly the defense’s version of Herrington’s purported testimony
indicates that Younger had a gun shortly before the encounter with Williams.
5
Since the defense investigator who interviewed Herrington was a meticulous and
thorough investigator, the court may have concluded that it was highly unlikely that the
investigator did not ask Herrington questions that would have elicited the information
8
¶9.
Herrington testified to the following on cross-examination:
Q.
A.
And turning to the cars.
Q.
Okay. You never saw him -- you never saw anything else except him
reach behind his back?
A.
That’s it.
Q.
¶10.
And according to . . . and I’m talking about right before you heard those
gunshots, okay, right before you heard the gunshots and you’re looking
at Calvin Younger are you telling the jury that the only thing you saw
was him starting to reach behind his back?
Okay.
As reflected in the exchange, Herrington did not put a gun in Younger’s hand
immediately before the shooting. If the trial judge erred in limiting Herrington’s testimony,
and we are not finding that he did, it is harmless error, at best, because of all of the other
evidence of Williams’s guilt that was presented to the jury.
¶11.
For example, the jury heard the testimonies of Fletcher Watts and Joe Pugh, who were
with Younger at Jay’s Lounge on the morning of the shooting. Watts testified that he saw
Williams exit his vehicle and fire several gunshots at Younger. Watts also disputed that
Younger was reaching for or had a gun in his hand immediately prior to the shooting. Watts
also disputed that they were turned away from the club that night for having guns in their
possession.
¶12.
Pugh corroborated Watts’s testimony that they were not denied entry to Jay’s Lounge
on the morning of the shooting. Pugh stated that while they were standing outside of the
club, they saw a vehicle that they recognized as Williams’s and that Younger said to him
regarding the earlier encounter with Younger at Jay’s Lounge.
9
“there goes [Smokie].” He testified that the car passed them and then turned around. He
stated that Williams then exited the vehicle and shot Younger with a pistol. Pugh denied
removing a weapon from Younger’s body.
¶13.
Further, Dr. Steven Hayne performed the autopsy and testified that Younger suffered
a total of five gunshot wounds, two of which were lethal. Dr. Hayne described the lethal
wounds as follows:
One gunshot wound struck the decedent in the mid right chest. That entrance
gunshot wound was located 19 inches below the top of the head approximately
2 inches to the right of the mid chest wall. The bullet was noted to travel
downward to the left going through the chest wall from front to back. It went
through the sternum, the breast plate. It and [sic] also went through the heart,
both the right and left ventricles of the heart. It went through the left lung and
fractured a rib on the far left side where the bullet came to rest. There was
extensive bleeding into the left chest cavity as well as the structure that holds
the heart.
In addition to that gunshot wound there was a second lethal gunshot wound
and that gunshot wound was located over the left back. The entrance was
found at a point 18 inches below the top of the head. The bullet traveled
markedly upward at approximately 40 degrees. It traveled slightly to the right.
It went through the left lung and then exited over the upper left chest wall . .
..
Dr. Hayne gave a brief overview of all of the gunshot wounds that Younger suffered:
So that’s a total, Counselor, of five gunshot wounds. Two lethal: One gunshot
wound to the chest that was lethal; one gunshot wound to the back that was
lethal. Three nonlethal gunshot wounds: One gunshot wound to the left thigh,
one gunshot wound grazing the right arm, one gunshot wound striking the back
of the right arm, exiting and then re-entering and traveling a short distance
across the front chest wall.
¶14.
Dr. Hayne answered affirmatively when asked by the State whether Younger’s
wounds were consistent with having been shot from behind or at an angle from the side.
Then, the State posed this question to Dr. Hayne: “Okay. Any wounds that you noticed that
10
would have been consistent with individuals directly in front of each other confronting each
other?” Dr. Hayne responded, “I could not exclude the gunshot wound to the right chest
wall, but again, that would be a difficult wound and it would favor a person having to use
their off hand if they’re right[-]handed and use their left hand.”
¶15.
Williams testified in his own defense. He stated that when he attempted to enter the
parking lot to Jay’s Lounge during the early morning hours of June 22, 2003, he was unable
to do so because the entrance to the parking lot was blocked. Williams stated that, as was
his usual practice, he pulled into the turning lane on Medgar Evers Boulevard and waited for
one of the security guards to recognize his vehicle. However, he realized that on this
particular night, he was driving a vehicle that he had not previously driven to the club;
therefore, he would likely not be recognized. According to Williams, he left his vehicle in
the road and walked in the direction of the club in an effort to find a security guard who
would remove the barrier so that he could enter the parking lot. Williams also stated that he
got his .9 millimeter handgun from the seat of the car before he exited the vehicle. Williams
explained that there is a grassy, hilly area in close proximity to the parking lot and that as he
began to walk up the hill, he heard someone yell at him. He stated that he recognized the
voice as belonging to Younger but quickly dismissed that notion because he thought that
Younger was incarcerated. Williams stated that he then saw Younger walk quickly toward
him. Williams recalled that Younger pointed at him and asked him, “What’s up, now
[mother f-----]?, What’s up now?” Williams stated that Younger then reached toward
Younger’s back pocket and that “[w]hen he went in his back pocket, he was pulling out his
pistol. He was pulling out his pistol out of his pocket.” Williams testified that he thought
11
that Younger was going to kill him because he had pressed charges against Younger for
armed robbery about one month prior to this incident. According to Williams, he pulled his
gun out of its holster and immediately began shooting after he saw Younger “come up with
a gun out of his back right pocket.” Williams testified that Younger kept coming at him as
he was shooting and that he “slipped down a hill” as he was shooting at Younger. Williams
stated that while he was slipping down the hill, Younger turned and ran down the street and
collapsed. Williams testified that he then decided that it was best to leave because he did not
know whether Younger had come to the club with others who might have wanted to retaliate
to against him. Williams testified that he then drove to a house that once belonged to his
grandmother.
¶16.
In an effort to bolster his theory of the case, Williams offered Trinell Van Horn who
was employed by the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department. Van Horn testified that Younger
threatened to harm Williams while Younger was incarcerated in 2003. Specifically, Van
Horn testified that Younger said that “he was going to do something to [Williams].” Van
Horn also stated that Younger told him that “[Younger] was going to end up catching a case.”
¶17.
Williams also called Detective James Cornelius with the Jackson Police Department
as a witness. Detective Cornelius testified that Williams had filed armed robbery charges
against Younger in May 2003. Detective Cornelius stated that he investigated the matter and
that Younger was subsequently arrested. Detective Cornelius also stated that Williams
provided a statement wherein he accused Younger of threatening to kill him. However,
Detective Cornelius testified that the report was generated on May 3, 2003, and that Younger
was not arrested until May 27, 2003. Detective Cornelius noted that there is no record of
12
Younger attempting to harm Williams during that time.
¶18.
We find that Williams was able to put before the jury his theory of the case, that is,
that he acted in self-defense, even though Herrington was not allowed to testify concerning
Herrington’s alleged encounter with Younger involving Younger’s attempt to take a gun into
Jay’s Lounge shortly before Williams’s encounter with Younger. The jury heard Williams
testify that Younger had a gun at the time of the shooting and that he aimed the gun at
Williams prior to Williams’s firing the fatal shots. The jury also heard testimony for law
enforcement officials, offered by the defense, that Younger had threatened Williams and had
vowed to kill or do something to Williams. Although Williams’s theory of self-defense was
placed before the jury, other evidence that contradicted Williams’s self-defense claim was
also placed before the jury for consideration. It is well settled that “[w]hen evidence is in
conflict, the jury is the sole judge of both the credibility of a witness and the weight of his
testimony.” Payton v. State, 897 So. 2d 921, 940 (¶57) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Weathersby
Chevrolet Co. v. Redd Pest Control Co., 778 So. 2d 130, 133 (¶10) (Miss. 2001)).
¶19.
We find that the trial judge’s exclusion of the additional testimony by Herrington was
at best harmless error because, based on the totality of evidence adduced, inclusion of the
additional testimony by Herrington, would not have altered the jury’s verdict.
This
contention of error lacks merit.
¶20.
The dissent vehemently argues that Williams was denied a fair trial because he was
not allowed to have Herrington testify about the alleged incident at Jay’s Lounge during
which he allegedly observed Younger with a gun. As stated, after interviewing Herrington,
the prosecutors advised the court that Herrington had told them that he had kicked Younger
13
off the premises of Jay’s Lounge earlier that day after Younger attempted to enter Jay’s
Lounge with a gun. As noted, the exact time of day of the encounter was not specified. On
the other hand, according to the defense, Herrington had told them that he turned Younger
and his accomplices away from Jay’s Lounge and that Younger and his group went next door
to Charlie’s Club, where they remained until Williams drove up.
¶21.
The record reflects that Williams’s attorneys called Herrington to the stand and made
a proffer regarding an incident that is not the subject of this appeal. However, for some
unexplained reason, the attorneys did not question Herrington about the encounter at Jay’s
Lounge. Given the fact that the prosecutors and the defense attorneys had different versions
about what Herrington had said to them about the encounter at Jay’s Lounge, it would seem
that this would have been a perfect time to clear up the matter at its source. Williams’s
attorneys failed to do so. After Herrington had concluded his proffer regarding the other
matter and had left the witness stand, Williams’s attorneys stated again to the court what they
believed Herrington’s testimony would have been regarding the Jay’s Lounge encounter. On
these facts, the conclusion is inescapable that Williams’s attorneys apparently were not
certain that Herrington would verify their earlier representation to the court regarding what
occurred at Jay’s Lounge. In any event, had Herrington been allowed to testify about the
Jay’s Lounge incident, the most that can be said about what his testimony would have been
is that no one knows what it would have been. Since Williams is the proponent of the banned
testimony, it is incumbent upon him to show that the banned testimony would have made a
difference in the outcome of the case. He has failed to make such showing, as he has not
even shown that Herrington would have testified that the incident with Younger and the gun
14
at Jay’s Lounge occurred just before the shooting incident.
2. Character of Victim
¶22.
The State filed several motions in limine prior to trial seeking to have testimony
regarding Younger’s prior criminal history excluded from the trial. The State also filed a
motion in limine to exclude testimony from Cassandra Younger, Williams’s girlfriend and
Younger’s sister, regarding Younger’s propensity for violence. The trial court granted the
motions. Williams contends that the trial court erred in doing so, because the rulings
prevented him from presenting his theory of the case.
¶23.
It has long been established that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith
on a particular occasion.” M.R.E. 404(a). However, Rule 404(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules
of Evidence provides an exception when:
Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by
an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character
trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution to rebut evidence
that the victim was the first aggressor[.]
¶24.
During her cross-examination of a witness for the State, Williams’s attorney sought
a ruling from the trial court regarding how she should proceed when seeking to show
Younger’s propensity for violence. The trial judge outlined the procedure in Heidel v. State,
587 So. 2d 835 (Miss. 1991) as follows:
There are two ways the Court can authorize this. The first procedure is the one
you suggested where the Court is allowed to go ahead and let evidence in in
anticipation of you bringing in the evidence at a later time which connects up
the dots and then would make the evidence relevant.
The other method by which the Court obtains the same level of latitude to the
15
defendant is that the witnesses are required to remain under subpoena and then
you’re entitled to have those witnesses reappear and you develop that evidence
at the time that you also establish the overt act by the victim against the
defendant.
I understand the theory about the Court can instruct the jury not to disregard
certain evidence but that’s a very poor way of preventing the jury from hearing
admissible evidence. Most of the time the Court has allowed evidence to
proceed out of sequence is during presentation of the defendant’s case in chief
not during the presentation of the prosecution’s case.
It’s my understanding the rules of self-defense does [sic] place into issue the
character of the victim once the issue of self-defense is raised. That’s just
[p]art 1.
Part 2 of it is that there also must be an overt act of aggression by that victim
before that character ever becomes relevant. The reason for that being is the
most violent man on the face of the earth can be sitting in his car and
somebody walk up behind him and shoot him in the back of his head. His
character has absolutely no relevance to what happened to him. So there has
to be something that puts in motion the aggression by the defendant.
Since you’re trying to develop this case during the course of the prosecution’s
case, the objection will be sustained; however, these witnesses will remain
under subpoena and available to you for you to call and develop that witness
during your case [in] chief. So that objection at this point is sustained.
¶25.
In Heidel, our supreme court held that it is within the discretion of the trial court to
admit evidence of a victim’s propensity for violence, subject to the defense attorney
supplying the necessary predicate that the victim committed an overt act against the accused.
Id. at 846. In this case, Herrington and Williams testified that Younger committed an overt
act immediately prior to the shooting. Although Herrington did not say that he saw Younger
with a gun in his hand immediately prior to the shooting, he stated that he saw Younger reach
toward his back. Williams, on the other hand, stated that he shot Younger after Younger
reached for a gun. Thus, in accordance with Heidel, the predicate was not laid for Williams’s
16
attorney to elicit testimony regarding Younger’s propensity for violence until after either
Herrington or Williams testified as to an overt act. Accordingly, the trial judge’s ruling
granting the motions in limine was proper at the time because testimony regarding Younger’s
propensity for violence was not relevant during the State’s case in chief. After the defense
had produced testimony regarding an overt act made by Younger toward Williams, it was
incumbent upon Williams to either recall Watts and Pugh to inquire further about Younger’s
reputation for violence or to call its own witness, including Cassandra, to establish this point.
Williams failed to do so. Therefore, this contention lacks merit.
¶26.
The State also filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Freda Luckett
regarding a conversation that she had had with Younger on the morning of the shooting.
According to Luckett, Younger made threats against Williams during that conversation. The
State argued that Luckett’s testimony would be hearsay that did not fall within any exception
and that there was no evidence in the record that indicated that the threats were
communicated to Williams. Specifically, the State provided in its motion that it sought to
prohibit the defense from introducing any statements that Luckett made regarding any
conversations that she had had with Younger. According to the discovery provided by
Williams to the State, Williams expected that Luckett would testify that “she witnessed [sic]
the decedent stating that he was going to kill, or cause substantial bodily injury to, Harvey
Williams, Jr. upon seeing him.”
¶27.
We note at the outset that even though the State contended that it sought to prohibit
the introduction of the statement that Luckett had made, our review of the transcript of the
motion hearing reveals that it sought to exclude Luckett’s testimony in this regard. After
17
arguments of counsel, the trial court did not exclude Luckett’s testimony but stated that it
was “going to sustain the objection at this time.” Apparently, the trial judge considered the
State’s request premature.
¶28.
In Gates v. State, 484 So. 2d 1002, 1008 (Miss. 1986) (citing Washington v. State, 307
So. 2d 430 (Miss. 1975)), our supreme court held that “[u]ncommunicated threats made by
the victim may be admissible, if otherwise competent, in murder cases where the defense is
self-defense and there is an issue as to who was the aggressor, since the threats are relevant
to the victim’s state of mind.” The Gates court also held that:
Wherever there is doubt, confusion, dispute, or conflict as to the origin of the
difficulty, or as to who was the aggressor in the difficulty which resulted in the
death, and when such fact is the pivotal one in the case, testimony of
uncommunicated threats, and the nature and character of previous difficulties,
wantonly provoked by the deceased, is always admissible, provided the
testimony shows some overt act on the part of the deceased at the time of the
fatal encounter.
Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Brown v. State, 88 Miss. 166, 171, 40 So. 737, 737 (1906)).
As previously stated, no evidence of an overt act by Younger had been introduced until
Herrington and Williams testified regarding Younger’s actions just before the shooting.
After this testimony, it would have been error not to allow Luckett’s testimony as to threats
that she heard Younger make against Williams. However, the defense failed to call Luckett
to the stand. We find no merit to this contention of error, as the trial judge’s ruling was
proper at the time it was made.
3. Prosecutorial Misconduct
a. Closing Argument
¶29.
Williams asserts that the State improperly argued that Williams was the only witness
18
who saw Younger with a gun shortly before the shooting. Specifically, Williams contends
that the following statement, among others, made by the State during its closing argument
was improper: “The only person that supposedly saw Calvin Younger with a gun was, guess
who, a convicted liar.” Then, a short while later, the State said to the jury: “Out of the 200
or so people out there, you don’t think there’s not one person other than Mr. Williams. He’s
the only one that’s come [sic] to testify that Calvin Younger had a gun. He’s it. Out of 200
people, he’s it.” Williams argues that “[a]lthough Anthony Herrington was not allowed to
testify that he saw [Younger] with a gun just prior to [Younger] being shot, [the prosecutor]
knew that Herrington could testify thusly.” Williams also contends that the State told the
court that during his interview with the State, Herrington had told the court that Younger was
kicked off the club’s premises for carrying a gun.
¶30.
In Foley v. State, 914 So. 2d 677, 687-88 (¶18) (Miss. 2005) (quoting Burr v.
Mississippi Baptist Medical Center, 909 So. 2d 721, 724-25 (¶7) (Miss. 2005)), the
Mississippi Supreme Court held that:
The standard of review that appellate courts must apply to lawyer misconduct
during opening statements or closing arguments is whether the natural and
probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice . . . so
as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. This Court has
held that “any alleged improper comment must be viewed in context, taking
the circumstances of the case into consideration.” The trial judge is in the best
position to determine if an alleged objectionable remark has a prejudicial
effect.
We note that Williams misrepresents what the State relayed to the trial court regarding
Herrington’s statements made during the interview with the State’s attorneys. As previously
stated, Herrington told the prosecutors that Younger “had a gun earlier that day” and that he
19
had kicked Younger off of the premises. We find no merit to Williams’s contention that the
State’s closing argument—that no one but the defendant saw Younger with a gun—was
improper, as the State simply argued the facts that were in evidence. Herrington did not
testify that he saw a gun in Younger’s hand immediately prior to the shooting. Further, even
in the portion of Herrington’s pretrial statement that the trial court did not allow in,
Herrington did not state that he saw a gun in Younger’s hands or pocket immediately prior
to the shooting. It is error for the State to argue facts in closing argument that were not
presented to the jury. See Tubb v. State, 217 Miss. 741, 743-44, 64 So. 2d 911, 912 (1953).
¶31.
Williams also argues that the prosecutor committed error during closing argument
when he made the following statement:
Think about this: If Calvin Younger were such a bad person, he’d been
shooting at people and robbing people and handling guns all his life, how hard
would it have been to get a conviction of that? If it’s so widely known, why
didn’t they put on one person that -The defense objected at this point, and the trial court sustained the objection. Thus, any error
was cured at this point. “When a trial court sustains an objection, it cures any error.”
Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 335 (¶91) (Miss. 1997). This contention of error lacks
merit.
b. Improper Questions
¶32.
Williams contends that he was denied due process and the right to a fair trial because
the State made improper statements and irrelevant inquiries during the course of his trial,
including: (1) referring to Jay’s Lounge as “Killer Jay’s,” (2) asking Williams if he had ever
abused Cassandra, (3) asking Williams how many children he had fathered and by how many
20
different women, (4) asking Williams whether he liked to “show off” and whether he had
attended a “Pimp and Ho Ball,” (5) asking Pugh if he knew where Cassandra was when the
State knew that Cassandra was incarcerated for murder, (6) asking Pugh whether Younger
was preparing to “get himself killed” on the night of the murder, and (7) asking Herrington
how many murders had occurred at Jay’s Lounge between 1999 and 2003. Williams
contends that the State only had one reason for making these inquiries and that was to
prejudice him in the eyes of the jury.
¶33.
We agree that one of the prosecutors was overzealous in her representation of the
State, and we do not condone the State’s behavior. However, we find any error in this regard
to be harmless. Williams admitted shooting Younger. The only issue before the jury was
whether the shooting occurred in self-defense. On this point, the evidence is conflicting, but
the record contains a plethora of evidence indicating that the shooting was not in selfdefense. The State’s witnesses testified that Williams shot Younger almost immediately after
getting out of his car and that the shooting was unprovoked. There is no merit to this
contention of error.
c. Mischaracterization of Dr. Hayne’s Testimony
¶34.
Williams asserts that the State mischaracterized Dr. Hayne’s testimony as it relates
to where the bullets entered Younger’s body. As noted, Dr. Hayne concluded that all of the
bullets entered from either the back or the side. Thus, Williams contends that the State
improperly asserted that Younger was shot four times in the back. The record reflects the
following exchange between Dr. Hayne and one of the prosecutors on redirect examination:
Q.
Is it not true that four out of five of those bullet wounds are from either
21
a lateral position, going from back to front, or from the back going from
back to front?
A.
They’re all going back to front with the exception of the gunshot wound
to the chest.
Q.
So only one wound in the chest and remaining wounds are going from
behind?
A.
Yes, sir.
(Emphasis added). We find no merit to this contention of error, as the record clearly reflects
that the State did not mischaracterize Dr. Hayne’s testimony.
4. Motion for a Continuance
¶35.
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance is within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the decision results in manifest
injustice.” Ruffin v. State, 992 So. 2d 1165, 1175 (¶29) (Miss. 2008) (quoting Boone v. State,
973 So. 2d 237, 241 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)). Williams asserts that he asked for a continuance
because he needed more time to locate two witnesses who would testify about Younger’s
propensity for violence. Williams did not request a continuance until the first day of trial.
The record reflects that Williams’s trial counsel was appointed on February 22, 2006, over
a year before his trial began in April 2007. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that she
could have discovered these witnesses during that time. Furthermore, Williams’s attorney
fails to offer any reason as to why she was unable to locate these witnesses during that time.
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial judge’s refusal to grant William’s attorney’s
motion for a continuance constitutes a manifest injustice.
¶36.
Williams also contends that a continuance was appropriate because the State was still
22
producing discovery until a week before trial and even after the trial had begun. For
example, Williams points out that the State did not produce the audiotape or transcript of
Luckett’s statement until the first day of trial. Williams further contends that the ballistics
report which established that Younger was shot with a .9 millimeter handgun was not
tendered until immediately before trial. Because this conflicts with Dr. Hayne’s opinion in
his autopsy report that three .357 projectiles were recovered from Younger’s body, Williams
argues that time was wasted trying to establish that the autopsy report was incorrect.
Williams fails to show how he was prejudiced by these late disclosures. First, the State did
not call Luckett as a witness. Second, Williams testified that he shot Younger with a .9
millimeter handgun, and there was no evidence of anyone else shooting. Therefore, Williams
could not have been blindsided by the late disclosure of the ballistics report that confirmed
what Williams already knew. This issue lacks merit.
5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶37.
Williams contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to comply with
discovery rules and that her failure to do so resulted in the exclusion of evidence that would
have supported his theory of the case. Williams does not identify any witnesses whose
testimonies were excluded, and we have found none in the record, except Herrington, who
was not excluded from testifying, although his testimony was limited. We have already
discussed the circumstances regarding Herrington, and there is no need to repeat that
discussion here. Since Williams has not directed us to any other witnesses whose testimonies
were excluded because of a discovery violation, we have nothing to review.
6. Impeachment of Cassandra
23
¶38.
Williams argues that the trial court erred in holding that Cassandra could be
impeached with a video that depicts her and Williams involved in roleplaying. Specifically,
the record reflects that the State acquired a videotape of Cassandra and Williams wherein
Williams asserts that Cassandra will do whatever he tells her to do. This videotape was
allegedly made at or for a “Pimp and Ho” ball. When the defense indicated that it anticipated
calling Cassandra to testify about the threats that Younger had allegedly communicated to
her regarding Williams, the State sought a ruling that it would be allowed to impeach
Cassandra with the videotape, especially with the portion where Williams bragged that she
would do whatever he told her to. The trial judge ruled that if Cassandra chose to testify, that
portion of the video would be played for the jury. The State was not attempting to use this
information in its case-in-chief. Rule 616 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that
“[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or
interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible.” The trial judge
committed no error.
7. Prior Inconsistent Statement
¶39.
Williams argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine
Hill regarding a prior statement that he had given to his attorney, an attorney who also had
previously represented Williams.
As previously stated, Hill provided an audiotaped
statement to police shortly after the shooting. The statement was later transcribed.
Hill
subsequently gave a tape-recorded statement to the attorney who had previously represented
Williams. The statement was not given to the State. Thereafter, the State filed a motion in
limine seeking to prohibit the defense from introducing any statements made to the attorney.
24
The trial court sustained the motion. The defense contends that Hill would have testified that
the statement that he gave to the police was mischaracterized by the police. Williams argues
that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the statement. We find that the statement was
clearly hearsay that does not fall within any exception. Therefore, it was properly excluded.
¶40.
Williams also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to use Hill’s
audiotaped statement as substantive evidence by telling the jury in its closing argument that
Williams’s warning to Hill to “hold your head down” constituted malice aforethought. Hill
testified at trial that he could not remember whether Williams said anything to him before
Williams exited the vehicle. Then, the State showed Hill the statement that he had provided
shortly after the incident wherein he stated that Williams told him “if something goes on just
hold your head down.” Hill testified that he heard gunshots shortly thereafter. Hill
acknowledged that although he was afraid when he provided the statement to the police, the
statement was a truthful account of what had transpired. Hill further stated that Williams
instructed him to put his head between his legs immediately before Williams exited the
vehicle. Thereafter, Hill answered questions regarding what Williams had told him as
Williams exited the vehicle by saying: “That’s what I said in the statement, yes, sir” and “I
said that in the statement.” After reviewing the transcript of the statement that he had given
to police, Hill testified as follows:
On the part when -- it was said, but I’m thinking the detective had
misunderstood it or whatever how it was said. The hold your head down part,
I’m thinking I had told him -- I said, Hold it down and they’re saying hold
your head down. I don’t understand how that -- that part there is the only part
that’s kind of messed up to me or whatever because I don’t remember him
saying hold your head down. I remember him saying, Hold it down. That’s
how I thought it was said. That’s what I had said.
25
Because Hill continued to testify that the officers misinterpreted what he said when he gave
his audiotaped statement, the State asked the trial court for permission to play the tape of
Hill’s statement to the jury. The trial court granted its request. The defense objected, and
the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the tape to be played to the jury.
¶41.
We find that even though Hill’s testimony was not consistent as to what Williams said
when he exited the vehicle, Hill testified that Williams told him to hold his head down as
Williams exited the vehicle. As a result, this testimony was before the jury and the State
committed no error in telling the jury in its closing argument that the statement constituted
malice aforethought. Further, we conclude that the information on the audiotape that was
played for the jury was largely cumulative of Hill’s testimony that Williams told him to hold
his head down. There is no merit to this contention of error.
8. Flight Instruction
¶42.
Williams contends that the trial court erred in giving the jury a flight instruction. The
record reflects that Williams left the club immediately after the shooting and went to his
grandmother’s former residence. He testified that he did so because he was afraid that some
of Younger’s friends would retaliate against him if he remained in the area. However,
Deputy Cornelius stated that he was in an unmarked car speaking to another officer when he
received a BOLO (be on the look out). He stated that he spotted a vehicle fitting that
description shortly thereafter and began to follow it. Deputy Cornelius testified that he
turned on his “blue headlight” and attempted to pull the vehicle over. However, he stated
that the vehicle did not stop. Deputy Cornelius recalled that the driver turned his headlights
off, causing Deputy Cornelius to lose sight of the vehicle. Then, according to Deputy
26
Cornelius, he spotted the vehicle again and observed two individuals run from the vehicle.
¶43.
In Tran v. State, 681 So. 2d 514, 519 (Miss. 1996), the Mississippi Supreme Court
held that:
We have said before that caution should be invoked by a court before giving
such a flight instruction. “An instruction that flight may be considered as a
circumstance of guilt or guilty knowledge is appropriate only where that flight
is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge.”
Reynolds v. State, 658 So. 2d 852, 856 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Fuselier v. State,
468 So. 2d 45, 57 (Miss. 1985)). To decide whether a flight instruction is
appropriate, this Court has set out a two-prong[ed] test. These prongs are: “(1)
Only unexplained flight merits a flight instruction; and (2) Flight instructions
are to be given only in cases where that circumstance has considerable
probative value.” Reynolds, 658 So. 2d at 856 (citing Fuselier, 468 So. 2d at
57).
We find that, despite Williams’s testimony that he fled the scene out of fear, his subsequent
actions render his testimony unreasonable. If Williams were genuinely afraid that someone
might harm him for killing Younger, he no longer had reason to be afraid when the police
began following him, as it is reasonable to conclude that the police would have protected him
had anyone attempted to retaliate. Therefore, we find that it was proper for the jury to be
given the flight instruction. This issue lacks merit.
9. Cumulative Error
¶44.
Finally, Williams asserts that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors requires
reversal. There is no merit to this issue, as we have found that the trial judge committed no
error.
¶45. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HINDS COUNTY.
27
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND
MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE
WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY BARNES, J.
CARLTON, J., DISSENTING:
¶46.
I respectfully dissent. I find the trial judge erred in excluding the testimony of
Anthony Herrington, and I would therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial.
Exclusion of evidence constitutes an extreme remedy under the Uniform Rule of Circuit and
County Court 9.04(I)(3). I will address the exclusion of Herrington’s testimony. The
defense gave the State advance notice that Herrington would testify regarding what he saw
at the time of the shooting.
¶47.
After arguments in the trial court, the trial judge ruled that the defense timely
disclosed Herrington as a witness to the prosecution in the defense’s supplemental discovery.
However, the defense sought to offer additional testimony by Herrington which was not
previously disclosed in the aforementioned supplemental defense discovery. The defense
claimed that Herrington provided the additional information on the day of trial. The trial
judge allowed Herrington to testify in accordance with the previously disclosed supplemental
defense discovery, but he precluded Herrington from testifying regarding the additional
matters that he revealed on the day of trial. The excluded testimony significantly supports
Williams’s self-defense theory and prevents the jury from obtaining a full understanding of
the facts underlying Williams’s defense showing Calvin Younger to be the initial aggressor.
¶48.
Williams contends that Herrington’s excluded testimony would have revealed that
Herrington was acting as a bouncer at Jay’s Lounge on June 22, 2003. Herrington claimed
Younger and his friends attempted to enter Jay’s Lounge on June 22. However, Herrington
28
refused to allow the men to enter the club and ordered them to leave the premises.
Herrington would have explained that he prohibited Younger’s entry into Jay’s Lounge
because Younger possessed a gun that day. Herrington would have been able to explain that
Jay’s Lounge prohibited its patrons from carrying firearms on the premises. Further,
Herrington explained that Younger then went to Charlie’s Club, which was nearby.
¶49.
Admittedly, Herrington’s testimony failed to show that he saw a gun in Younger’s
hand at the time that the actual shooting occurred outside the club. However, the excluded
testimony provided critical facts supporting Williams’s theory of self-defense by showing
that Younger possessed a gun the day of the shooting in the exact area of the shooting. The
altercation and shooting occurred outside of Jay’s Lounge as Younger approached from the
direction of the nearby club, Charlie’s. Further, Herrington’s testimony would have shown
that Younger, while armed with a gun, actually tried to enter Jay’s Lounge on the same day
the shooting occurred. Williams was known to be a frequent patron of Jay’s Lounge. From
that excluded testimony, the jury might have inferred that Younger, who approached
Williams from the nearby club, still possessed the gun when Williams shot him.6 Therefore,
I disagree with the majority’s finding that any error in the trial court’s limitation of
Herrington’s testimony constituted harmless error. The trial court’s ruling unduly restricted
Williams’s ability to present his defense, and as a result, the severe ruling deprived him of
a fair trial.
6
The men who were with Younger when he tried to enter Jay’s Lounge, and later
when the shooting occurred, testified that Younger had a cell phone in his hand, not a
weapon. However, no cell phone was recovered at the crime scene or ever produced by his
companions.
29
¶50.
The trial judge only allowed Herrington to testify in accordance with the expected
testimony set forth in the supplemental defense discovery asserting that, at the time of the
shooting, Herrington saw Younger reach for his back pocket while arguing with Williams.
The excluded testimony would have corroborated Williams’s claim that Younger possessed
a firearm, and the jury could have also inferred that Younger and his companions were
looking for Williams. The majority asserts that the evidence failed to show Younger was the
initial aggressor. I disagree. Younger’s confrontational approach on the backdrop of
previous hostilities and earlier gun possession that day show Younger to be the initial
aggressor.
¶51.
Younger pointed at Williams as he walked toward him through the parking lot and
asked him: “What’s up now, Mother ******, What’s up now?” Herrington testified that
Younger then reached behind himself, but he did not see whether Younger had a gun in his
hand. Williams testified that he saw Younger brandish his gun. Williams then pulled his
own gun out of its holster and immediately began shooting at Younger. Afraid that Younger
planned to kill him (Williams) in retaliation for previously filing armed robbery charges
against Younger, Williams shot first. Other excluded testimony reveals that Younger had
indeed made prior threats to kill Williams.
¶52.
Exclusion of evidence is an extreme remedy. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held
that a criminal defendant’s evidence should be presented in court, despite a discovery
violation, in all but extreme circumstances. The supreme court stated:
[W]here faced with a discovery violation, technical or otherwise, in a criminal
proceeding, the [c]ircuit [c]ourt should-pre-trial or during trial[:]
30
(1)
Upon objection by a party, give that party a reasonable opportunity to
become familiar with the undisclosed evidence by interviewing the
witnesses, inspecting the physical evidence, etc.
(2)
If, after this opportunity for familiarization, the objecting party believes
that it may be prejudiced by lack of opportunity to prepare to meet the
evidence, it must request a continuance. Failure to do so constitutes an
acquiescence that the trial may commence or proceed and that the
discovery rule violator may use the evidence as though there had been
no discovery violation.
(3)
If the objecting party requests a continuance, the discovery violator
may choose to proceed with trial and forego using the undisclosed
evidence. If the discovery violator is not willing to proceed without the
evidence, the [c]ircuit [c]ourt must grant the requested continuance.
Skaggs v. State, 676 So. 2d 897, 903 (Miss. 1996) (citations omitted).
¶53.
In Houston v. State, 531 So. 2d 598, 612 (Miss. 1988), the supreme court cautioned
that exclusion of a defendant’s evidence at trial “ought [to] be reserved for cases in which
the defendant participates significantly in some deliberate, cynical scheme to gain a
substantial tactical advantage.” The majority finds that the trial judge must have believed
the defense’s delay in revealing the substance of Herrington’s testimony was part of a
calculated scheme to gain an advantage over the State, because the trial judge did not state
in the record that the defense’s delay was not part of a scheme to achieve a tactical
advantage. I find the majority’s argument incorrect.
¶54.
In this case, the State received notice of the witness, albeit through supplemental
discovery; therefore, other less severe remedies should have been pursued. Id. See also
URCCC 9.04. In light of the trial judge’s ruling that the State received notice of this witness,
the State could have claimed surprise only as to the additional testimony Herrington
disclosed on the day of trial whereby Herrington asserted that he prohibited Younger’s entry
31
to Jay’s Lounge due to Younger’s gun possession. Again, the trial judge found the defense
gave sufficient notice regarding Herrington’s testimony about the actual shooting previously
disclosed in supplemental discovery. Nothing in the record indicates that a continuance
would have failed to yield a sufficient remedy to allow the State to investigate and meet the
new evidence. Further, the trial court made no findings in the record that the defense acted
willfully in failing to disclose the full nature of Herrington’s testimony. However, had the
trial judge found such willfulness in the defense attorney’s perceived discovery violation, the
trial judge could have imposed sanctions upon defense counsel. Based on the foregoing, I
respectfully dissent.
BARNES, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
32
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.