Case Title: Thomas v. State

Citation: 488 So. 2d 1343

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1986-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
488 So. 2d 1343 (1986) Donald THOMAS v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 55634. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 21, 1986. Robert C. Grenfell, Jackson, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Catherine Walker Underwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before WALKER, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: In December of 1983, the appellant was convicted in the First Judicial District of Hinds County for attempted rape. He raises one issue on appeal. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion for discovery under Rule 4.06 of the Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice. He requested, inter alia, the following: The alleged attempted rape occurred in a taxi cab of which the appellant was the driver. An earring was found in the back seat during the subsequent search of the taxi. The victim, during her direct testimony, testified that she had earrings on that night. The prosecuting attorney exhibited the earring to her and she identified it as one she was wearing that night. She testified that the earring was the one that she lost in the taxi cab that night, and that it was in substantially the same condition except it was bent some and the hook was missing. *1344 The prosecuting attorney then sought to introduce the earring into evidence. The defense counsel objected with one ground being that the earring had not been presented to him prior to trial despite his request. The trial judge sustained the objection, finding that the earring had not been properly presented to the defense counsel; however, he refused defense counsel's request to instruct the jury to disregard any questioning about the earring, as showing force, and his request for a mistrial if the jury could not in their minds exclude such evidence. One of the investigating officers later testified, over objection, that another officer had found a lady's earring when they conducted the search of the taxi cab. The prosecuting attorney again made reference to the earring in his closing argument, as follows: The relevant portion of Rule 4.06 is as follows: "[Upon request] the defendant should be permitted to inspect tangible evidence which may be used against him... ." Armstrong v. State, 214 So. 2d 589, 596 (Miss. 1968). See also, Love v. State, 441 So. 2d 1353, 1355 (Miss. 1983); Pryor v. State, 349 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Miss. 1977); Gentry v. State, 338 So. 2d 1229, 1231 (Miss. 1976); Sisk v. State, 260 So. 2d 485, 488 (Miss. 1972); Jackson v. State, 243 So. 2d 396, 397-98 (Miss. 1971). Failure to permit defendant's counsel to inspect physical evidence requested pursuant to 4.06 makes such physical evidence "and testimony concerning [it] ... inadmissible... ." Jones v. State, 330 So. 2d 597, 601 (Miss. 1976). See also, Morris v. State, 436 So. 2d 1381, 1385 (Miss. 1983); Jackson v. State, 426 So. 2d 405, 407 (Miss. 1983). We point out that a court order is not necessary; the request to make discovery is sufficient to oblige the prosecution to do so. Foster v. State, 484 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Miss. 1986). The appellant's assignment is well taken and a new trial must be ordered. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.