I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 0 8 4 4 - S CT H A R V E Y W IL L IA M S , JR . a/k/

a S M O K IE
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 06/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. L. BRE LAND HI LBURN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M ERRI DA CO XW ELL CH AR L E S RI CH AR D M UL L I NS J AN E E. TUC KER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C
. HOL L AND DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 03/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. H arvey “Sm oki e” W i l l i ams, J r . , s hot and ki l l ed C al vi n Y ounger i n the parki ng l otat J ay’ s L ounge in Jackson, al l egedl y i n s el f
- def ens e. A ttr i al , he ca l l ed a bounc er , A nt hony H err i ngt on, t o t es t i f

y thatY oungerha d pos s es s ed a f i r earm e ar l i erthatni ght
. T hatt es t i m ony
w as excl uded bec aus e i tw as notdi s cl os ed i n di scovery. W i l l i ams w as convi ct ed, and the C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed the c o n v ict ion
. B ec au se n o e v iden ce ind icates tha t th is disco v ery

### Willia ms v. S tate , _ So. 3d _, 2010 WL 161495, *16 (Mi ss . Ct . App. , J anuary 19, 1 

### 2010). 2 v io lati o n w as w il lf

u l, th e ev iden ce sho u ld no t h av e b ee n ex clud ed
. T h u s, th e co n v ictio n is
re v e rs e d , a n d th e c a s e is re m a n d e d fo r a n e w tr ia l. S TATEM ENT OF FACTS ¶2. E ar l y i n the m orni ng of J une 22, 2003, W i l l i am s parked hi s vehi cl e i n the t urn l ane i n the mi ddl e of

M edgarE vers D r i ve i n f r ontof J ay’ s L ounge, a ni ght cl ub i n J acks on. A c c o rd in g to h is te stim o n y a t tria l h e e x ited h is c a r s a w Y o u n g e r p u ll a g u n fr o m b e h in d h is back. W i l l i ams f

i r ed of f f i ve s hot s a nd f

l ed the s cene . W i l l i ams pr oduced no otherw i tnes s es
w ho w oul d t es t i fy t hatY oungerhad pul l ed a gun on W i l l i ams. H e di d, how ever , pr oduce A nthony H err i ngt on, a bounc era tthe cl ub, w ho w oul d ha ve t es t i f i ed thathe per s onal l y had deni ed entr y t o C al vi n Y oungerear l i erthatni ghtbeca us e Y oungerhad a gun on hi s per s on. ¶3. W hi l e H err i ngt on w as a l l ow ed to t est i fy t hat he had heard Y ou ng er c ur s i ng at W il li am s b efo re the sh o o ti n g an d that h e h ad s e e n Y o u n g er rea ch tow ard h is ba ck b efo re W i l l i ams f

i r ed, he w as notal l ow ed t o t es t i f y thatY oungerhad pos s es s ed a gun e ar l i er b e c a u se th e d e fe n se ’s d isc o v e ry re sp o n se s h a d n o t m e n tio n e d th is fa c t. ¶4
. O n the sec o n d d ay o f th e tr ial , W il li am s’s att o rne y told the ju d g e th a t H erring ton ’s
s t ory aboutthe gun h ad been di s cover ed by the def ens e onl y thatday. N everthel es s , t he evi dence w as excl uded, and W i l l i ams w as c onvi ct ed. H i s a ppeal w as hear d by the C our tof A p p e a ls, w h ich a ffirm e d th e c o n v ictio n . W e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri. 1 A N A L Y S ISMiss. T ran sp. Com m '

n v. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 34 ( ¶ 4) ( M i s s . 2003) 

### . 2

### Id. 3 

### URCCC 9.04( C) ( em

phas is adde d). 4 

### 3 ¶ 5
. P u rsu a n t to M is s is s ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 7 (h ), w e lim it o u r re v iew to
w hetherthe tr i al courtshou l d have e xcl uded port i ons of A nthony H err i ngt on’ s t es t i m ony. T he s t and ard of

r evi ew f orthe admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence i s abus e of

di s cr et i on. 2 T he tr i al court ' s deci s i on w i l l s t and unl es s the r evi ew i ng cour tconcl udes thatthe dec i s i on
w as arbi tr ary and cl earl y er r oneous , amount i ng t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. H er e, evi dence

3
w as excl uded bas ed on an a l l eged di s covery vi ol at i on. W e mustdet erm i ne ( 1) w hethers uch
a v io latio n o c c u rre d a n d , if so , (2 ) w h e th e r th e e x c lu sio n o f th is e v id e n c e w a s a n a p p ro p ria te
r emedy. I . W HET HER T HERE W AS A VI OLAT I ON OF DI S COVE RY PR O C ED U R ES. ¶6. T he pr oces s by w hi ch a def endant compl i es w i th di s covery r equi r ement s i s out l i ned i n U ni f or m R ul e of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce 9. 04: C
. . . . th e d e fe n d a n t sh a ll, su b jec t to c o n stitu tio n a l li m itatio n s, p ro m p tly di s c l os e t o the p r os e c ut or. . . the f ol l owi ng i nf

ormat i on a nd mat e r i al w hi ch corr es ponds t o thatw hi ch the def endants oughta nd w hi ch i s i n the pos s es s i on, cus t ody, orcont rol of the def endantorthe def

endant ’ s att orney, orthe e x iste n c e o f w h ich is kn o wn , o rb y th e ex e r c is e o

f du e d i l ig e n c e ma

y b e c o me kn o wn , to th e d e fe n d a n t o r d e fe n d a n t’s c o u n se l: 1. N a mes a nd a dd r e s s e s o f a l l wi tne s s e s i n c hi e f

whi c h t he d e fe n d a n t m a y o ffe r a t trial, tog e th e r w ith a c o p y o f th e c o n ten ts of any st at ement , w r i t t en, r ecor ded orotherw i s e pr es erved of eac h s uch w i tnes s and the s ubs t ance of any or al s t at ement s m ade b y a n y s u c h w itn e s s . . . . 4

### 4

If a fte r c o m p ly in g w ith th e r u le s , a p a rty d isc o v e rs n e w e v id e n c e , itm u st b e p ro m p tly di s cl os ed. H er e, W i l l i ams compl i ed w i th pr etr i al di s covery r equi r ement s , di s cl os i ng H err i ngton’s name and a s um m ary of hi s t es t i m ony, butpurpor t edl y di s cover ed new i nf or m at i on f

r om H err i ngt on dur i ng the tr i al
. T he tr i al c our ta l l ow ed H err i ngt on t o t es t i f y, butexcl uded the s t at ement s purpor t edl y di s cover ed r ece nt l y by the def ens e and noti ncl uded i n the di s covery pr ovi ded t o t he St at e. ¶ 7
. E ith e r sid e m a y u se n e w ly d isc o v e re d in fo rm a tio n s u b jec t to th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 9 .0 4 . T h e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e ru le r e q u ire s o n ly d isc lo su re o f in fo rm a tio n a n d m a ter ials know n ort hatw oul d have be come know n by the exe r ci s e of du e di l i gence and pr om pt di s cl os ur e of

new l y di s cover ed i nf

or m at i on. T he t r i al cour tdi d nots peci f i cal l y f i nd thatt he i nf or m at i on r egar di ng Y ounger ’ s pos s es s i on of a gun ac tuall y w as know n by the def ens e, thati tw oul d have be en know n by due di l i gence , or thati tw as notprompt l y di s cl os ed t o t he S tat e o n ce itw as k n o w n . If n o n e o f th ese elem en ts w as p rese n t, then there w as n o d isco v ery
v io latio n a t all. ¶ 8
. H o w e v e r, th e trial c o u rt d id h a v e in fo rm a tio n a t its d isp o sa l to d e ter m in e w ith in its di s cr et i on thatdue di l i gence m ay notha ve been exer ci s ed i n di s covery. W i l l i ams’ s att or ney admi t t ed thathe di d notbegi n pr epar i ng f orthe ca s e unt i l M ar ch 3, 2007, w hen the A pr i l 3, 2007, tr i al dat e w as s et , af t erhavi ng been appoi nt ed t o t ake on the case m ore t han a year bef or e. A nd i tappea r s thatH err i ngt on w as noti nt ervi ew ed atal l by the def ens e un t i l t he
w e e k b e fo re th e trial. ¶9. I n Mo rr is v . S ta te , w e f o u n d th a t a tr ia l co u rt d id n o t ab u se d isc re tio n w h e n it det erm i ned thata di s covery vi ol at i on w as “w i l l f ul and mot i vat ed by a de s i r e t o obt ai n a

### Mo rris v. Sta te , 927 So. 2d 744, 747 ( Mis s. 2006). 5 Ho u sto n v. S ta te , 531 So. 2d 598, 612 ( M i s s . 1988) 

### . 6

### Mo rris v. Sta te , 927 So. 2d 744, 747 ( Mis s. 2006). 7

### Mo rris , 927 So. 2d at

747. 8 D a rb y v. S ta te , 538 So. 2d 1168, 1176 ( M i s s . 1989) 

### . 9 

### 5 t act i cal advant age, ” eve n thoug h t he j udge gave no s peci f i c r eas on f

orthe rul i ng. 5 C ons i der i ng our hol di ng i n Mo rr is , w e w o u ld e x h ib it a la c k o f d e fe re n c e to th e trial c o u rt if
w e fo u n d that ith ad e rred in d eterm ining tha t a d isco v ery v iolati o n h ad o cc u rred
. H o w ev er, even though thatdet erm i nat i on s t ands , w e musts ett l e w hetherthe exc l us i on of i m por t ant t es t i m ony w as the appr opr i at e r emedy. I I . W HE T HE R T HE T RI AL CO UR T AB US E D I T S DI S CR E T I ON I N E XC L UD I NG HE RR I NGTO N’ S T E S T I M ON Y B AS E D O N THE F I NDI NG OF A DI S COVE RY VI OLAT I ON. ¶10. I n the cont extof

di s covery vi ol at i ons , excl us i on of evi dence i s a r adi cal s anct i on that sh o u ld rarely b e u sed
. If a tr ial co u rti s m ad e aw are of a pa rty ’s f ail u re to c o m p ly w ith 6 di s covery re qui r ement s , i tm ay admi tthe evi dence , gr anta cont i nuance , or“ent ers uch an
or deras i tdeems j us tunderthe ci r cumst ance s . ” H ow ever , the general rul e i s thatt he 7 evi dence cannotbe exc l uded. I n D a rb y v . S ta te , w e c a rv e d o u t an e x c e p tio n to th is ru le: 8 I f the tr i al courtdet erm i nes thatthe def endant ' s di s covery vi ol at i on i s “w i l l f ul and mot i vat ed by a des i r e t o obt ai n a t act i cal advant age, ” the new l y di s cover ed evi dence orw i tnes s es m ay be exc l uded. 9

### Mo rris , 927 So. 2d at 747. 10 Sk ag gs v . S ta te , 6 7 6 S o . 2 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 3 -04 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). 11 

### Skaggs , 676 So. 2d at

902. 12 

### See Willia ms v. S

tate , __So . 3d__ , 20 10 WL 16 14 95 , *5 (¶ 8) (M iss. Ct. App ., 13 

### Januar y 19, 2010) R a y v. S ta te , 5 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ). 14 

### 6 ¶11. I n Mo rr is , w e aff i rm ed a fi nd i ng thata di s covery vi ol at i on w as w i l l f ul w her e the def endantgave the St at e a l i s tof w i tnes s es t he m orni ng t hatt he t r i al began. O n the other 10 hand, i n Sk ag

gs v . S ta te , w e reversed w here t he tri al co urtst ruck the t est i m on y o f a def ense
w i tnes s w ho of

f er ed addi t i on al d et ai l s thatw er e noti n r eci pr ocal di s covery. T her e, t he 11 def ens e couns el adm i t t ed t o t he cour tt hathe had l earned of t he addi t i onal t es t i m ony onl y t hat
m o rn in g a n d h a d n o t ev e n n o tified th e S tate th a t th e w itn e ss ’s te stim o n y m ig h t b e d iffe re n t. 12 ¶12. I n thi s cas e, s i m i l ar l y t o Skaggs a nd i n cont r as tt o Mo rr is , t he d ef ens e pr ovi ded d isc o v e ry to th e S tate , in c lu d in g s u m m a rie s o f w itn e ss tes tim o n y . T h e d e fe n se a tto rn e y to ld th e ju d g e th a t H e rrin g to n late r h a d p ro v id e d h im w ith a n a d d iti o n a l fa c t, w h ich w a s q u ick ly d isc lo se d to th e S tate , an d n o th in g in th e rec o rd ind ica tes o th e rw ise
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
re a s o n e d th a t f

a ilu re to d is c lo s e th e e n tir e s u b s ta n c e o f H e rr in g to n ’s te s tim o n y w a s , per se , re a s o n to fi n d th a t th e s a m e fa ilu re w a s w ilf u l. W e d is a g re e . 13 ¶13. W hi l e avoi di ng unf ai rs urpr i s e t o e i therthe def ens e orpr os ecut i on i s a f undament al pol i cy of c r i m i nal pr ocedur e, nothi ng i s more f undament al than an a ccus ed' s r i ghtt o pr es ent wi tn e s s e s i n h i s o wn d e f e n s e . I twou l d b e a mi s t a k e t o a d o p ta p o s tu r e i n wh i c h we a s s u me 14 thatre cent l y di s cover ed evi dence i s par tof s om e sc heme t o def r aud j us t i ce a nd r equi r e the

### Wil li ams , 2010 WL 161495, at *5. 15 R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1001 ( M i s s . 2007) 

### . 16 

### 7 d efe n d an t t o p rov e o the rw ise. H ere , the o n ly ind icati o n in the rec o rd th at th e d isco v ery vi ol a t i on was wi l l f

ul o rmot i va t e d by a d e s i r e t o ob t a i n a t a c t i c a l a dv a nt a ge i s t hatt he evi dence w as r ece nt l y di s cover ed. C oupl ed w i th t he f actthatthe def

ens e had di s cl os ed the i dent i ty of

the w i tnes s , had pr ovi ded a part i al s um m ary of hi s t es t i m ony, and had di s cl os ed the new i nf

or m at i on t o the St at e bef or e the w i tnes s t ook the s t and, w e do notthi nk thatt he
s us pi ci ous t i m i ng i s enough. Fur ther , excl us i on w as es peci al l y s harp cons i der i ng t he i m por t ance of

t hi s t es t i m ony t o W i l l i ams’ s cas e. T heref or e, a s anct i on l es s har s h t han excl us i on of

def ens e t es t i m ony, i f

any, s houl d have be en i m pos ed. ¶ 1 4
. F in a lly , c o n tra ry to th e re a so n in g o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, w e d o n o t th in k th a t th is
err orw as harm l es s . T he admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence cons t i tut es r ever s i bl e err or 15 onl y w her e a pa r ty can s how pr ej udi ce orharm . H err i ngt on w ou l d have corr obor at ed 16 W i l l i ams’ s t es t i m ony by ver i f yi ng thatY oungerhad p oss es s ed a gun s hor t l y bef or e the
s hoot i ng. Fr om the excl uded t es t i m ony, the j ury mi ghtha ve i nf err ed thatY ounger , w ho had appr oache d W i l l i ams, s t i l l had pos s es s ed the gun w hen W i l l i am s s hothi m . W i thout H err i ngt on’ s t es t i m ony, the evi dence ove rw hel m i ngl y i ndi cat es thatY oungerw as unarm ed. ¶15. T her ef

or e, w e f i nd that the tr i al court ’ s excl us i on of t he ful l t est i m ony of A nt hony H err i ngt on w as a n a bus e of di s cr et i on, as the err ors er i ous l y pr ej udi ced the def endant
. T he
o p inion o f th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls an d the c o n v ict ion b y the H ind s C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtare
re v e rse d , an d th e c a se is re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 1 6
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.

### 8

WALL ER, C .J ., CARL SO N AND GR AVES , P .JJ. , D ICKIN SO N,RAND OL PH , KITCHENS AND C HANDL ER, JJ ., CO NCU R. L AMAR, J. , CO NCU RS I N RE SULT ONLY.