Opinion ID: 1723327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: was there a discovery violation?

Text: Simpson County Jail inmate Norman Shelly was called by the state as a rebuttal witness at the guilt phase of appellant's trial. [Vol. XI, pp. 1928-1930] Shelly testified he overheard a conversation between Johnson and cellmate and co-indictee Otis Lee Fairley in which, without objection by defense counsel, the following transpired at trial: Q. Tell me what you heard Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fairley say. Without telling anybody else. A. I overheard them talking about how one took the knife off the top of the car. Q. Which one was that? A. And gave it to the other one. Otis took the knife off the top of the car and gave it to Sam. Q. What did Sam say, if anything, if you remember? A. I don't know. I can't remember where  he just stated that was the fact, the way he took the knife and used the knife. Q. Is that the gist of the conversation as best you can remember it? A. Yes, sir. [Vol. XI, p. 1930] [Emphasis added] There was no objection and the defense cross-examined Norman Shelly. In this appeal the appellant pleads complete surprise and that he had no opportunity to interview the witness concerning this statement. Defense made two motions before trial which in this assignment of error he asserts have been violated. The first was a motion for disclosure of witnesses, all evidence favorable to accused and discovery and inspection [Supplemental Abstract, pp. 389-390; Vol. II, pp. 207-210], which was granted. [Supplemental Abstract, p. 391; Vol. V, p. 706] The second was a motion to supress written or oral statements made to Johnson by any investigating officer [Supplemental Abstract, pp. 392-393; Vol. II, pp. 224-226], which was granted as confessed by the D.A. Tolbert v. State, 441 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Miss. 1983). Johnson claims in this assignment the admission of the above conversation into evidence was reversible error because the prosecutor deliberately violated a court suppression order. He complains the suppression order directed that no statement of the defendant regarding the facts can be used against him at the trial of this cause. Contrary to what Johnson now asserts, the above conversation was not embraced in any discovery motion or discovery order. Johnson's brief contains the following astonishing statements: Shelly's testimony came as a complete surprise to the Appellant. Defense Counsel had no opportunity to interview the witness concerning the statements attributed to the Appellant. [sic] [Supplemental Brief, p. 1] If this were the case, why did defense counsel make no objection? Further, the admission of this testimony was not assigned as error in the detailed motions for new trial. On appeal, Johnson has changed counsel. Johnson and his counsel go outside the record in claiming Shelly's testimony came as a complete surprise. No such claim appears in the record. To permit a defendant and his counsel in any case, including a death penalty case, to sit idly by and make no objection to questionable testimony, exacerbate the matter still further by ignoring the testimony in the motion for new trial, and argue for the first time on appeal the admission of such testimony, would countenance the laying of a trap in every case. This is especially true where, as in this case, there has been a change in defense counsel. In the first place, from this record we do not know if Johnson's counsel was unaware of this proferred testimony prior to trial. In the second place, it is clear from this record Johnson was ably represented by thorough defense counsel, and there may have been a very good reason why no objection was made. The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Tolbert v. State, 441 So.2d 1374 (Miss. 1983), and there is no merit in this assignment.