Opinion ID: 1938150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether morris's right to a fair trial was violated by the state's alleged discovery violations and the police's alleged insufficient investigation.

Text: ¶ 10. Morris contends that the State committed serious discovery violations by failing to provide the names of witnesses potentially helpful to Morris's case in a timely fashion. He argues that the State's delay in the production of those names forced him to produce a list of witnesses he intended to call at the last minute before trial. However, the record is devoid of any evidence of discovery violations or undue delay by the State in producing the identities of potential witnesses, and Morris failed to present any evidence or testimony that would lead to the conclusion that the State waited to produce a list of witnesses to the defense. ¶ 11. In response to defense counsel's allegation of delay during the hearing on the State's motion to exclude Morris's witnesses, the State asserted that it did not even know who some of the proposed witnesses were or what connection they had with the case against Morris. Specifically concerning the two witnesses at issue in this appeal, Leflore and Parish, Morris simply made no showing how the police could have known of them and thus failed to disclose them. ¶ 12. For a discovery violation to require reversal there must be a showing of prejudice and the non-disclosed material must be more than simply `cumulative.' McCoy v. State, 811 So.2d 482, 484 (Miss. Ct.App.2002) (citing Prewitt v. State, 755 So.2d 537, 541 (Miss.Ct.App.1999); Buckhalter v. State, 480 So.2d 1128, 1128 (Miss. 1985)). There is nothing in the record showing knowledge on the part of the State of either Leflore or Parish. Morris simply cannot substantiate his claims against the State and, thus, cannot show that a discovery violation was committed by the State or that he was prejudiced in any way. ¶ 13. Concerning Morris's claim that an inadequate police investigation warrants reversal of the verdict against him, we have held that the sufficiency or insufficiency of a police investigation simply goes to the weight of the evidence, and it is for a jury to decide what to believe. Cox v. State, 849 So.2d 1257, 1267 (Miss. 2003). Even though Morris claimed prejudice because the police and/or the DA's office failed to find certain witnesses who would have helped him in his defense, he put on no proof at trial of an alleged inadequate investigation. ¶ 14. These claims are without merit.