Opinion ID: 1725949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying thorson's motion for discovery prior to the batson hearing?

Text: ¶ 13. Prior to the hearing, Thorson filed a motion for discovery attempting to obtain copies of all notes made by the district attorney or his assistants relating to voir dire and jury selection in the trial of this case. The trial judge originally granted this motion, but he subsequently set aside his order granting discovery and overruled the motion. ¶ 14. The State asserts that Thorson was not entitled to this material according to Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 9.04(B)(1), which mandates: Work Product. Disclosure shall not be required of legal research or of records, correspondence, reports, or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense attorney or members of legal staff. U.R.C.C.C. 9.04(B)(1). The State submits that the prosecutor's notes regarding potential jurors contained opinions, theories and conclusions of the prosecutor which were not discoverable under this rule. ¶ 15. We ruled on a similar issue in Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289 (Miss.1994). In Mack, the appellant contended that the prosecutor had violated Uniform Criminal Rule of Circuit Court 4.06 by not giving him information on a potential juror. Mack, 650 So.2d at 1299. The prosecution had exercised a peremptory challenge against a venire person because she had written bad checks in the past. Id. The appellant argued that the prosecution should have furnished him with this information prior to trial. We held that Rule 4.06 did not require the prosecution to provide the defense with information about potential jurors unless that information concerned a juror's ability to be fair and impartial. Likewise, we now find that the defense is not entitled to discover a prosecutor's notes made about jurors during the voir dire. ¶ 16. Thorson argues that he needs these notes to help him rebut the State's race neutral reason. Thorson was already entitled to the transcript of the voir dire and the jury questionnaires. These were sufficient to help him prepare for the Batson hearing. The personal notes of the prosecutor made during voir dire almost certainly contain the prosecutor's opinions and theories. The Work Product Doctrine in Rule 9.04(B)(1) is intended to protect a party's opinions and theories from his opponent. Several jurisdictions have already addressed this issue and held that a defendant is not entitled to discover prosecutor's notes made during voir dire in order to prepare for a Batson hearing. [7] Today, we join these jurisdictions and hold that the trial court was correct in denying Thorson's request to obtain notes made by the prosecution during jury selection.