Opinion ID: 1670921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial judge committed reversible error by denying agnew's motion in limine to exclude the murder weapon and by allowing testimony regarding the identification of the weapon to be admitted at trial.

Text: A. ¶ 16. We will begin with Agnew's assertion that the trial judge erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude the murder weapon. Agnew filed a motion in limine to prevent the introduction of the knife, which was the alleged murder weapon, into evidence. Counsel for Agnew told the trial judge that the State had complied with the discovery rules and properly disclosed the knife. The basis for Agnew's motion was that there had been no fingerprint analysis, nor had the knife been tested to determine whether there was blood on it. Agnew claimed that this made the knife irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial judge denied this motion, and informed Agnew that he would rely on Agnew to make timely motions to any attempt by the State to elicit information which had not been furnished to him. ¶ 17. Evidentiary rulings of a trial judge will not be disturbed absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d at 379. There is nothing in the record to indicate the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in denying the motion in limine. The State did concede that the knife had not been submitted for blood or fingerprint analysis, but asserted that the victim's sister would identify the knife as one from her apartment, and further, as being the same knife she saw Agnew use to stab her sister. The testimony regarding the knife was unquestionably relevant. The weight and credibility to be afforded to the testimony were matters for the jury. Bridges v. State, 716 So.2d 614, 616 (Miss.1998). Therefore, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Agnew's motion in limine. B. ¶ 18. Lastly, Agnew claims the trial judge erred by refusing to grant a mistrial at the conclusion of Misty High's testimony. He claims the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose the substance of her testimony. Specifically, he asserts this failure resulted in unfair surprise which served to undermine the defense strategy and, ultimately, the fairness of his trial. Misty testified that she recognized the knife as one from her apartment, as it had distinguishing characteristics. She and Kristy only had two knives in their apartment, and part of the handle of this one was broken off. Misty went on to testify that not only could she identify the knife as belonging to her and Kristy, but she could also identify the knife as the same one used by Agnew to stab Kristy. Agnew did not object to this testimony. ¶ 19. The court took a recess at the completion of Misty's direct examination. Agnew moved for a mistrial at this recess. He claimed Misty's testimony positively identifying the knife as the one Agnew used to stab Kristy was an unfair surprise and a violation of U.R.C.C.C. 9.04A which states: [T]he prosecution must disclose to each defendant or defendant's attorney ... the existence of which is known or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecution: 1. Names and addresses of all witnesses in chief proposed to be offered by the prosecution at trial, together with a copy of the contents of any statement, written, recorded or otherwise preserved of each such witness and the substance of any oral statement made by any such witness.... The trial judge denied his motion for a mistrial. ¶ 20. Agnew argues he knew Misty would identify the knife as one coming from her apartment, but he did not know she would identify it as being the same knife Agnew used to stab Kristy. Agnew states the reason he did not object at trial was because it was the defense strategy to demonstrate on cross-examination that no one could positively identify the knife as the one actually used in the homicide. Agnew claims his only option was to move for a mistrial. ¶ 21. It is elementary, for preservation of error for review, there must be a contemporaneous objection. King v. State, 615 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss. 1993) (citing Smith v. State, 530 So.2d 155, 161-62 (Miss.1988)). In the case now before us, the record reflects that Agnew heard the State, at least three times, declare that Misty High was able to testify not only that the knife recovered from the dumpster belonged to her, but also that it was the same knife she saw Agnew use to stab her sister before Misty actually took the stand and testified to the same. ¶ 22. First, when the trial judge was ruling on Agnew's own motions in limine, counsel for the State told the trial judge: We can positively identify a knife found out in the dumpster a[s] being the knife that came from the house that she saw Mr. Agnew stab her sister with. So we certainly feel that that knife is admissible. (emphasis added). The basis of Agnew's motion in limine was the lack of fingerprint or blood analysis. He raised no objection regarding Misty's ability to identify that knife as the one used by Agnew. ¶ 23. Second, in the State's opening statement, counsel for the State told the jury: A keythe key witness in this case is Misty High who is the twin sister of the victim Kristy. She will testify to you about what she observed that evening, what they had done that day. She can also testify to you that she actually saw Eric Agnew stab her sister with this butcher knife, a knife which she can identify as coming from their kitchen because of the uniqueness of this knife which she will tell you about when she testifies. (emphasis added). Again, there was no objection from Agnew. ¶ 24. Third, when the State conducted the direct examination of Tupelo Police Officer Ronnie Thomas, the following exchange occurred: BY MR. YOUNG: So [Misty] identified that knife as a knife coming from their apartment? BY OFFICER THOMAS: That's right. BY MR. YOUNG: And did she also identify that knife as the knife she saw in Eric Agnew's hand? BY OFFICER THOMAS: That's correct. Again, there was no objection from Agnew. All three of these instances occurred on the first day of the trial. Misty's testimony that is now in question occurred in the morning on the second day of the trial. ¶ 25. Agnew argues he believed the reference by the State in its opening statement was only rhetorical and demonstrated the State's intent to introduce statements that would only create circumstantial evidence linking Agnew to the knife. This is of no consequence. Agnew had heard that Misty would identify the knife as being the same one Agnew used to stab her sister at least three times before Misty ever took the witness stand. He neither objected to this information nor told the trial judge he had no prior knowledge the witness could identify the weapon as the murder weapon until the court recess at the conclusion of her testimony. ¶ 26. Ordinarily, when the defense alerts the trial judge to the prosecution's attempt to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed, and the defense objects for that reason, the court shall act as follows: 1. Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness, to examine the newly produced documents, photographs or other evidence; and 2. If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance ... or grant a mistrial. U.R.C.C.C. 9.04 I.1., 2. ¶ 27. Agnew asserts although his objections may be argued untimely, he still raised his objection in the form of a motion for mistrial. Had Agnew truly been surprised his motion for a mistrial may have preserved his arguments for appeal. However, based upon the facts of this case, this argument is without merit. Agnew may claim strategic sandbagging on his part, but he cannot claim unfair surprise. Agnew failed to make a timely objection at trial, and consequently, cannot raise his objections now on appeal.