Opinion ID: 1919046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of fundamentally fair trial

Text: ¶ 17. Jones argues that the trial court denied him a fundamentally fair trial under the United States and Mississippi Constitutions by allowing the amendment on the morning of trial and after the jury had been selected. According to Jones, the State not only was obligated to inform him earlier of the indictment's defect, but also it concealed the identity of its material witness, Grady Shoemaker, until the morning of trial. In support of his argument, Jones does not cite any applicable sections of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions or corresponding case law. ¶ 18. Generally, a defendant can be denied a fundamentally fair trial when the aggregate effect of various harmless errors creates such an atmosphere of bias, passion, and prejudice that reversal is required. Manning v. State, 884 So.2d 717, 730 (Miss.2004). While Jones does not offer applicable support for his assertion that he was denied a constitutional right to a fundamentally fair trial, Jones does cite Hentz v. State, 489 So.2d 1386 (Miss.1986), and Norris v. State, 735 So.2d 363 (Miss. 1999), in support of his argument that his conviction must be reversed due to the State's failure to disclose Shoemaker's role in the transaction. These cases deal with discovery violations and the State's refusal to disclose required evidence and information. Jones does not allege that the State refused to disclose Shoemaker as a potential witness. Instead, Jones asserts that the State misled the defense by concealing the identity of the State's true material witness. According to his argument, both of Jones's lost defenses relate to the fact that he could not have sold the cocaine to the CI. These defenses do not change the fact that he sold the drugs to someone in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-139(a). ¶ 19. While two of Jones's defenses were impaired, this did not prejudice his case. There are two reasons why. First, neither of the two lost defenses relate to any essential element of the offense. They are both related only to the change of names from Bill LNU to Grady Shoemaker. Second, this Court has said that it is not necessary for the indictment to mention the purchaser of the drugs when the defendant is charged with the sale of drugs. Young v. State, 245 So.2d 26, 27 (Miss.1971); Lea v. State, 64 Miss. 201, 1 So. 51 (1887). Only if a substantive defense is impaired, sufficiently to prejudice a defendant's case, should such amendment to the indictment warrant reversal. ¶ 20. In closing, the defense repackages the same facts and argument, by saying that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by intentionally and/or negligently misleading the defense by concealing from Jones the identity of the true material witness of the State. That is not borne out by the record before us. Jones's second assertion of error is without merit.