Case Name: Willie E. NORRIS and Jason Norris a/k/a Jason Shawn Norris v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1999-04-15
Citations: 735 So. 2d 363
Docket Number: No. 97-KA-01256-SCT
Parties: Willie E. NORRIS and Jason Norris a/k/a Jason Shawn Norris v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, SMITH, MILLS AND COBB, JJ„ CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 735
Pages: 363–368

Head Matter:
Willie E. NORRIS and Jason Norris a/k/a Jason Shawn Norris v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 97-KA-01256-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 15, 1999.
K. Maxwell Graves, Jr., Meadville, Attorney for Appellants.
Office of the Attorney General by Billy L. Gore, Attorney for Appellee.

Opinion:
WALLER, Justice,
for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. Appellants Willie E. Norris and Jason Norris ("the Norrises") were convicted of simple assault on a law enforcement officer in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Mississippi. Circuit Judge Forrest A. Johnson, Jr., sentenced the pair to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, but ordered that after serving six months in the Franklin County Jail, the remaining two and a half years be suspended and served on post-release supervision. Feeling aggrieved, the Norrises appeal to this Court and assign the following as error:
I. Whether the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the Appellants' motion for a new trial grounded, in part, on the claim that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
II. Whether the trial judge abused his discretion in handling a discovery violation presented by the State.
¶ 2. Because the latter assignment of error requires reversal, we find it unnecessary to reach the first issue.
DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
II. Whether the trial judge abused his discretion in handling a discovery violation presented by the State.
¶ 3. This Court has set forth the following procedures for trial courts to follow when faced with a discovery violation:
1) Upon defense objection, the trial court should give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the undisclosed evidence by interviewing the witness, inspecting the physical evidence, etc.
2) If, after this opportunity for familiarization, the defendant believes he may be prejudiced by lack of opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence, he must request a continuance. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the issue.
3) If the defendant does request a continuance, the State may choose to proceed with trial and forego using the undisclosed evidence. If the State is not willing to proceed without the evidence, the trial court must grant the requested continuance.
Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 367-68 (Miss.1987) (citing Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19, 23-24 (Miss.1983)(Robertson, J., specially concurring); See also Ramos v. State, 710 So.2d 380, 385 (Miss.1998); West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 18 (Miss.1989).
¶ 4. At 6:00 p.m. the day before trial, the State produced, for the first time, the statements of approximately 25 witnesses, which according to the defense attorney, was approximately 60 to 90 pages. The next day the Norrises requested a continuance so that they could have time to review the newly disclosed statements. The trial judge, after an extensive hearing, de nied the motion, though he did find that a discovery violation had taken place.
¶ 5. Due to the lateness of the disclosures, the Norrises were unable to avail themselves of the opportunity to conduct any meaningful analysis of the statements. Statements were taken from six of the defense witnesses and eight of the witnesses called by the State. The importance of this opportunity is plain, as this was a factually intensive case, i.e. "he said, she said," with the outcome of the trial dependent upon the jury's opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses.
¶ 6. In spite of the great care taken by the trial judge to diminish the prejudicial effects brought on by the State's belated disclosure, the Norrises were ambushed and surprised by the violation of a discovery rulé, which is simple and clear on its face. The night before a jury trial is a very busy time for even a well-prepared lawyer under the best of circumstances. Procedurally, the Norrises did all that they were required to do when confronted with a possible discovery violation. See Houston v. State, 531 So.2d 598, 611-12 (Miss.1988). Under Box and its progeny, the defendant is not required to show prejudice, nor is he required to demonstrate what, if any, efforts have been made in order to rebut the late discovery. Neither our cases nor our rules require defendants to demonstrate prejudice where there has been a gross discovery violation by the State, as presented here.
¶ 7. The discovery rules apply to both the defendant and the State. The essential purpose of Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice is the elimination of trial by ambush and surprise. Robinson v. State, 508 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Miss.1987). "Disclosure is the hallmark of fairness and the quest for justice that should be the goal of the criminal justice system." Id.
¶ 8. This Court has continually admonished the State to " '... make available to attorneys for defendants all . materi-ales]'." Ramos, 710 So.2d at 386 (quoting Hentz v. State, 489 So.2d 1386, 1388 (Miss.1986)). What was stated in Ramos and Dotson bears reiterating, " '[n]ow, we take this opportunity to reinforce that which we stated in Hentz with a simple message to the bench and bar. Read Hentz! Apply Hentz! ' " Ramos, 710 So.2d at 386 (quoting Dotson v. State, 593 So.2d 7, 12 (Miss.1991)).
CONCLUSION
¶ 9. Due to the fact that the Norrises were provided at least 60 pages of documents comprising statements of 25 witnesses at 6:00 p.m. the day before trial, the lower court should have granted at least a short continuance in order to allow the Norrises time to adequately prepare. Because the trial judge abused his discretion in not granting a continuance, we reverse the judgment below and remand this case for a new trial.
¶ 10. REVERSED AND REVLANDED.
SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, SMITH, MILLS AND COBB, JJ" CONCUR.
PRATHER, C.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
. See also Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126 (Miss.1984); Harris v. State, 446 So.2d 585 (Miss.1984); Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1983).