Opinion ID: 1104462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1290 (1) the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to sustain appellant's motion for discovery to inspect and test the alleged controlled substance

Text: In the record there is a motion styled MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF SANDRA SIMMONS JOHNSON which reads in part: 12. Defendant moves for the disclosure of, and to inspect, examine and test any photographs, books, papers, documents and other tangible objects that were obtained from defendant or defendant's property or that allegedly belonged to defendant. There is nothing further in the record to indicate what transpired. There is no indication that the trial court refused to sustain appellant's motion. It is the responsibility of the movant to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by her and failure to do so constitutes a waiver. Martin v. State, 354 So.2d 1114 (Miss. 1978); Conn v. State, 260 So.2d 471 (Miss. 1972); Marr v. State, 248 Miss. 281, 159 So.2d 167 (1963); Grant v. Planter's Bank, 5 Miss. (4 How.) 326 (1840). See Minor v. State, 396 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 1981). Further, the record shows that appellant did not object to the testimony concerning the alleged controlled substance or the admission of the substance into evidence. Appellant's motion for a new trial further does not raise this question. There is no merit to appellant's assignment of error.