Opinion ID: 1728915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in its handling of an alleged discovery violation.

Text: ¶ 20. Russell contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in its handling of an alleged discovery violation under U.R.C.C.C. 9.04. State's witness Brenda Johnson gave a statement to the police on the day of the shooting, September 17, 1992. In her statement she described what she had seen pertaining to the incident but did not include the information that she had first observed Russell in the bank parking lot ten to fifteen minutes before his wife arrived. At trial, she testified over Russell's objection that Russell was smiling, that he said hi to her and her son, and that Russell did not seem confused or disoriented in any way. The State asserted that it was unaware of this new testimony until minutes before Johnson took the stand. ¶ 21. Russell made a Box motion and requested the opportunity to interview the witness outside the presence of the jury. See Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss.1983). The court overruled the motion and found no discovery violation. Russell attempted to impeach Johnson concerning the absence of the information in her statement to the police, but the court did not allow this line of questioning. ¶ 22. The State concedes that Johnson's oral statements containing new information regarding her encounter with Russell should have been disclosed pursuant to U.R.C.C.C. 9.04 and were not. The State argues, however, that its failure to disclose this information is not a fatal flaw under the facts of this case. The State contends that Johnson's surprise testimony could not have affected the outcome of this case given the overwhelming [and] virtually uncontradicted evidence against Russell. The State cites Dennis v. State, 555 So.2d 679, 682 (Miss.1989) in support of its position. There we stated: A violation of Rule 4.06 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court [now U.R.C.C.C. 9.04] is harmless error unless it shall affirmatively appear, from the whole record, that such ... has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. McKinney v. State, 482 So.2d 1129 (Miss.1986) (quoting Buckhalter v. State, 480 So.2d 1128 (Miss.1985)). In the case before us, and under its facts, the error has, indeed, proved harmless. Dennis, 555 So.2d at 682. ¶ 23. Dennis is distinguishable from the case at bar. The discovery violation at issue there involved a revised witness list which was not served on the defendant. Id. at 682. Two additional names were included on this revised list. Id. The facts of the case sub judice show that Russell was aware that Johnson might testify but was unaware of Johnson's added testimony until that testimony was offered on the stand. In Dennis, no surprise was alleged. ¶ 24. Further, the State's argument does not withstand this Court's ruling in Ramos v. State, 710 So.2d 380 (Miss.1998). In Ramos we reversed on certiorari review the Court of Appeals' decision affirming a felony drug possession conviction. Id. We found reversible error in the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial or continuance in light of the State's discovery violation in introducing multiple inculpatory statements and documents which had not been provided to the defense. Id. at 386. The Court of Appeals had found that a continuance should have been granted but that the error did not warrant reversal. Id. at 385. We disagreed stating: The finding of harmless error appears to contradict published decisions of this Court. In West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 17 (Miss.1989), we found that the fact that the prosecution fails to unearth evidence until the last minute does not eviscerate the prejudice to a defendant caught unaware, nor the necessity for reversal where the trial court denies the defense request for a reasonable continuance, citing Rule 4.06(e). Ramos, 710 So.2d at 385. Thus, in light of Ramos and West, the fact that the prosecution failed to unearth evidence [of Johnson's additional testimony] until the last minute does not justify the discovery violation, nor does it prevent reversal. ¶ 25. Box and its progeny provided guidelines for trial judges in dealing with discovery violations. We examined those cases in Ramos and set forth the following procedure for the trial court to follow: 1) Upon defense objection, the trial court should give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the undisclosed evidence by interviewing the witness, inspecting the physical evidence, etc. 2) If, after this opportunity for familiarization, the defendant believes he may be prejudiced by lack of opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence, he must request a continuance. Failure to do so constitutes waiver of the issue. 3) If the defendant does request a continuance, the State may choose to proceed with trial and forego using the undisclosed evidence. If the State is not willing to proceed without the evidence, the trial court must grant the requested continuance. Ramos, 710 So.2d at 385. ¶ 26. The trial judge in the case sub judice failed to follow this procedure from the beginning by refusing to allow Russell to interview the witness. Russell, like Ramos, put forth every effort to convince the trial judge to follow the Box procedure, but the judge refused. We find that the judge committed reversible error in failing to follow the proper procedure. ¶ 27. It should be noted, though the State fails to argue this point, that the trial judge did not find a discovery violation and used that fact to justify his denial of a continuance. The judge stated: Now in Box, as I understood, the Court found a violation, that there was a violation of discovery, and the most practical, common sense resolution of it was to permit the defendant or the State to interview the witness and then come back and advise the Court how they are adversely impacted if we continue with the trial because of the discovery violation. And then if they make a sufficient finding then I have the alternatives of aborting the trial or going for a continuance or whatever the circumstances may mandate. But I've made the determination that there is no discovery violation. ¶ 28. This analysis of Box is flawed. We have articulated no requirement in Box or Ramos that the trial court find a discovery violation before allowing the defendant to interview the witness and proceed through the steps outlined above. Further, the State has conceded the existence of a discovery violation by stating in its brief, the procedures of U.R.C.C.C. 9.04 should have been followed, and they were not. ¶ 29. In ruling on Russell's Box motion the trial judge stated: So in every trial, and I want the Supreme Court to address this, in every trial in which the witness says something beyond a statement narrative from the law enforcement agency and that statement or that response was not even elicited from anyone in that narrative then we're going to stop the trial and consume 10, 15, or 30 minutes for the attorney to investigate the case is what you're asking me to do as far as Box. ¶ 30. We urge the trial court to follow the dictates of common sense on a case-by-case basis when faced with such a situation. Where, as here, the defendant is surprised with new evidence and where, as here, that evidence was known to the prosecution, though only for a short time, and where, as here, that evidence is detrimental to a central theory of defense, the defendant is entitled, at the very least, to an interview with the witness. The consumption of 10, 15, or 30 minutes for the attorney to investigate the case is a small price to pay to insure that the rule of law is followed. ¶ 31. Russell also contends that his cross-examination of Johnson was improperly restricted. Specifically, he asserts that he should have been allowed to impeach the witness by questioning her failure to tell the police about her encounter with Russell. He attempted this line of questioning, and the trial judge did not allow it. We find that the trial court's failure to allow Russell's attempts at impeachment further compounded the error the court had already committed in refusing to follow the Box procedure.