Opinion ID: 1817434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The statement of March 21, 1983

Text: This statement is substantially consistent with Knight's testimony at trial. Applying the unequivocal language of Rule 4.06 as quoted above to the facts of this case, we hold that the first four statements  those of December 28 and 29, 1982, and the two statements of March 17, 1983  were discoverable. Counsel for defense was entitled to reasonable access to these statements before being required to cross-examine the witness Knight. Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126, 133-135 (Miss. 1984); Patrick v. State, 285 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1973). Much is made of the notion that Barnes' attorney was not surprised and that he was nevertheless allowed to conduct an effective cross-examination of Knight. The record makes clear, however, that to this day Barnes' attorney has not seen the statements. Great insight is not required to see how important access to verbatim transcripts of previous statements given by a key witness would be in the cross-examination of that witness, particularly where over a three month period of time the witness told three conflicting stories. In such cases, we do not ask whether defense counsel was surprised by the witness' direct testimony. We inquiry whether the rule has been violated. Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19, 21 (Miss. 1983) (A rule which is not enforced is no rule.) Rule 4.06, in pertinent part, was designed to assure that defense counsel had access to materially conflicting prior statements given by the State's witnesses for use in cross-examination. Where the trial court has refused to order production of clearly discoverable witness statements which go to the heart of the credibility of the State's principal witness in a murder prosecution, we do not engage in nice calculations regarding the amount of resulting prejudice. See Ford v. State, 444 So.2d 841, 843 (Miss. 1984) and Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381, 1387 (Miss. 1983). We reverse and remand for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED PATTERSON, C.J., HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., specially concur. WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., dissent.