Opinion ID: 1788580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant a new trial based on allegations of intimidation of a witness.

Text: ¶ 13. A denial of a request for new trial will be reversed only when such denial amounts to an abuse of that judge's discretion. Dupree v. Plantation Pointe, L.P., 892 So.2d 228, 232 (Miss.2004). After the trial had been concluded, on September 12, 2002, Kindred filed his motion for new trial alleging the following with respect to intimidation of the witness: 1) A deputy clerk informed Columbus Country Club's counsel that an indictment had been returned and a capias issued for Plaintiff's witness, Tyrone McCoy. This secret information was furnished to the Country Club's counsel prior to service of the capias, and at a time when the indictment was required by law to be kept secret. The clerk's furnishing of a secret indictment to defense counsel involves the Clerk, as an arm of the Court, in assisting one of the parties to the litigation. This denies Plaintiff an impartial forum as required by the due process clause of the Mississippi and United States Constitutions. 2) Furnishing information to a private party, about a secret indictment prior to the indictments having been served upon the accused, violates Mississippi law and offends public policy. 3) Upon receiving secret information from a clerk that a capias and indictment had been returned against the witness, Tyrone McCoy, agents of the Columbus Country Club utilized said information to intimidate Tyrone McCoy in an attempt to prohibit him from testifying or to affect his testimony. This conduct amounts to intimidating the witness and is per se grounds for a new trial. Defendants denied these allegations, and a hearing was held on November 22, 2002. ¶ 14. At the hearing, Kindred's attorney called only one witness to the alleged intimidation, Tyrone McCoy. McCoy's testimony including the following on direct examination: Q. Tell me about  what did Mr. Richmond talk to you about? A. Uh, pending charges. Q. What  What  just tell me what you said and what he said. A. All right. Uh, he  he told me that, uh, did I know I had some charges pending against me. I  I told him, no I don't have any charges, and, uh, I asked him what kind of charges. He told me I had a cocaine charge and a RICO charge, and that they might be introduced during the trial and I might get locked up if I testified, and I told him I  I was going to testify anyway. Q. Did  did y'all have any discussion about how old those charges were? A. Yeah. I asked him, uh, when I supposed to been got them. He told me one of them was in eighty-eight and the other one was in ninety-two. Q. The charges? A. Yeah. Q. Did  did he have any documents or papers back there with him about the charges? A. Yeah. He, uh  he was reading off a. . . piece of paper with the charges on it, and I can see eighty-eight and ninety-two. Q. Did, uh  aft  after he talked to you, you went ahead and testified? A. Yes, I did. Q. You didn't tell me about that con  what he told you before you testified, did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. Why did you  why didn't you tell me at that time? A. I . . . don't really know. I  you know what I'm saying, I was scared at the time, you know. I really didn't know what to do, you know.    Q. Did  would you tell Judge Howard how it made you feel to be asked about the pending charges and be told that you might be locked up? A. Well, one  one thing I was scared. Q. You were scared? A. Yeah. Q. Why did you go ahead and testify then? A. . . . I knowed it was the right thing to do. The cross-examination of McCoy included the following: Q. Mr. McCoy, you in fact testified at the, uh  the trial, did you not? A. I did.    Q. And you testified truthfully under oath about that? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Didn't change your testimony at all about that? A. No. Q. Okay. And you testified truthfully because you believe that was the right thing to do. Correct? A. Yeah. ¶ 15. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the following: There are some issues that have been raised concerning the Court's rulings in certain matters that y'all have addressed in both your motion and brief and responses that I've got to take up, but right now there are some observations that must be made by the Court in the record because without them I think the record in any reviewing court would be left in the dark. The first issue I'd like to address is contained in the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, Paragraph Roman Numeral I. Allegations are made in paragraph I that secret information was furnished to the country club's counsel prior to service of a capias by the clerk of the circuit court in Lowndes County, Mississippi. That is an allegation that is not supported by the proof and the evidence. . .    The second one was ... that this furnishing of information to a private party about a secret indictment about the indictments prior to them having been served violates the law and offends public policy. There is no evidence or testimony whatsoever that that was done, and the allegation is in the motion for a new trial that is in the Court's opinion not supported by any proof or evidence. Number three assumes that secret information from a clerk was received by someone involved in here that a capias and indictment had been issued. Well, and that it was done to intimidate one, Tyrone McCoy, to prohibit him from testifying. The Court finds that there's no proof or evidence to support that allegation.    The Court has had the occasion to observe Mr. McCoy testify during the trial of this case, and on the motion to order a new trial in this case and in the motions to dismiss the indictments against him in the criminal matters. I observed him, I heard his testimony, and heard his responses to the questions, and I cannot say what worth, weight and credibility that a jury would assign to his testimony because that is their decision to make, but in ruling on this motion it is my decision to determine the weight, worth and credibility to give to his testimony, and the Court gives none. (Emphasis added). ¶ 16. This Court condemns and abhors improper intimidation tactics as alleged by Kindred. If sufficient and credible evidence existed of intimidation, this Court's ruling would be otherwise. However, Kindred called only one witness to testify to the alleged intimidation of McCoy. The trial judge found that this testimony was not credible. There being no other witnesses, this Court is without sufficient evidence to grant a new trial. Finding that the denial of the new trial was not an abuse of discretion, this Court affirms the denial of the motion for new trial. Dupree, 892 So.2d at 232.