Opinion ID: 1938150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in excluding leflore and parish's testimony.

Text: ¶ 6. The Court of Appeals held that it was error for the circuit court to exclude the testimony of Tasha Leflore and Nathaniel Parish. The State asserts that (1) because Morris did not raise this issue on appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have addressed it; (2) the actual issue raised by Morris was whether discovery violations by the police and district attorney's office warranted a reversal of the circuit court's verdict or a new trial; and (3) it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to address this issue because issues not raised in an appellate brief should not be considered on appeal. See Sanders v. State, 678 So.2d 663, 666-70 (Miss.1996); Boykin v. Boykin, 565 So.2d 1109, 1112 (Miss.1990); Palmer v. Biloxi Regional Medical Center, Inc., 564 So.2d 1346, 1360 (Miss.1990). ¶ 7. The Court of Appeals held that, although Morris framed his argument as one concerning discovery violations by the State, the real issue centered around the circuit court's exclusion of defense witnesses. The crux of the issue is whether Morris was prejudiced by the trial court's excluding and/or limiting the testimony of certain defense witnesses.... Morris, 927 So.2d at 753, 2005 WL 2277614, at . We find the Court of Appeals properly addressed the issue because it implicates a basic constitutional right-the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause. [1] See, e.g., Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). ¶ 8. In criminal cases which have issues pertaining to the exclusion of evidence or witnesses due to discovery violations, we look to Mississippi Rule of Uniform Circuit and County Court Practice 9.04(I), which provides that, if, prior to trial, the circuit court is made aware of one party's failure to comply with an applicable discovery rule, it has the discretion to allow such evidence to be presented at trial, to grant a continuance, or to enter such an order as it deems just under the circumstances. If the circuit court determines that the defendant's newly-discovered evidence or witnesses are prejudicial to the State, the State must ask for a continuance so that it may review the evidence or interview the witnesses and thus become prepared to counter the same. Even if the State does not ask for a continuance, the circuit court cannot exclude the evidence. Carraway v. State, 562 So.2d 1199, 1203 (Miss. 1990). To do so would be to violate the Compulsory Process Clause. ¶ 9. There is an exemption to this procedure, however: if the circuit court determines that the defendant's discovery violation is `willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage,' the newly-discovered evidence or witnesses may be excluded. Id. at 1203 (quoting Darby v. State, 538 So.2d 1168, 1176 (Miss.1989)); see also Taylor, 484 U.S. at 415, 108 S.Ct. 646. We find Morris's discovery violation was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, and therefore the circuit court, even though it did not use the proper procedure, properly excluded the evidence. The only reason proffered by Morris for failure to designate these witnesses sooner was the police department's failure to find these witnesses and give the names to Morris through discovery. The record shows that, while defense counsel had two hearings in federal court the week prior to Morris's trial, defense counsel had represented Morris since the arraignment which was held approximately six weeks prior to the trial. Morris violated the discovery rule by failing to give the State the defense's witness list when the State provided its list to defense counsel. Defense counsel waited until the weekend prior to the trial, which began on a Monday, to find defense witnesses. Finally, and most importantly, instead of giving the list of defense witnesses to the State one or two days prior to trial, defense counsel waited until the morning the trial began. To blame the prosecution or the police department for his own failure to investigate and failure to abide by the discovery rules is disingenuous at best. This issue is without merit.