Opinion ID: 1755805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial court's refusal to allow defense witness Larry Montgomery to testify.

Text: ¶ 18. In Houston v. State, 531 So.2d 598, 611 (Miss.1988), this Court discussed Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 4.06 (superseded in 1995 by URCCC 9.04) regarding discovery violations and stated that, [t]he Circuit Court has the authority, subject to constitutional limitations, to fix discovery cutoff deadlines and enforce them through appropriate sanctions. Where a defendant violates a discovery obligation, the circuit court may utilize a wide array of sanctions, one of which may include exclusion of the evidence. Broadhead v. Bonita Lakes Mall, Ltd. Partnership, 702 So.2d 92, 104 (Miss.1997). ¶ 19. According to the record, the only things provided to the State were Montgomery's name, address and telephone number. Montgomery chose not to provide anything else to the State and thus violated the discovery process by not disclosing what Larry Montgomery would testify about at trial. Therefore, consistent with Houston and Broadhead, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, and this argument is without merit. ¶ 20. Additionally, the State raised that no error was committed because what Montgomery sought to offer was cumulative. Montgomery called three witnesses to testify regarding her character for truthfulness. She then called her husband to testify as to the same. This would have been cumulative of the other testimony. Montgomery proffered the excluded testimony, which would have been limited to her character and propensity for truthfulness. We have stated: ¶ 41. Miss. R. Evid. 403 expressly allows a trial court to exclude evidence which it finds to be cumulative. Knotts by Knotts v. Hassell, 659 So.2d 886, 891 (Miss.1995); see also Clark v. City of Pascagoula, 507 So.2d 70, 76 (Miss.1987) (holding that trial judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding cumulative evidence). The touchstone of Rule 403 is whether or not the evidence  of whatever type  is cumulative, and if evidence is in fact cumulative it is within the discretion of the court to exclude said evidence. Knotts, 659 So.2d at 891. Broadhead, 702 So.2d at 103. See also Flanagin v. State, 473 So.2d 482 (Miss.1985). ¶ 21. Following the ruling in Broadhead, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in prohibiting the cumulative testimony of Larry Montgomery. Thus, this issue is without merit.