Opinion ID: 1149229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error in overruling duplantis' motion to dismiss the indictment or in the alternative to compel discovery of exculpatory evidence.

Text: ¶ 32. URCCC 9.04(A) (formerly Rule 4.06 of the criminal rules) states that the prosecution must disclose: 6. Any exculpatory material concerning the defendant. ¶ 33. Duplantis claims that the prosecution is in violation of this rule by failing to produce plaster casts of tires and foot prints left at the scene, a fireplace poker and shovel taken by evidence technicians at the scene and subsequently turned over to the crime lab for testing, the lab reports of those test results, and the clothing and shoes worn by Duplantis and his codefendant at the time of their arrest. Duplantis contends that neither he nor the trial court could know whether these items could have been useful in his defense unless he had the opportunity to examine them before trial. The state responds that they have turned over every item of evidence in their possession. Additionally, the state suggests that none of the items requested by Duplantis have ever existed. ¶ 34. This Court was confronted with a similar situation in Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss. 1987). In Tolbert, the defendant had a small particle of skin clipped from his finger. This particle of skin was not sent to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and was apparently lost. Tolbert moved the circuit court to dismiss the indictment against him on the grounds that the skin was material, exculpatory evidence that had been intentionally destroyed or lost by the State. The court denied this motion. This Court stated in regards to the lost skin, In analyzing whether the absence of the skin particle denied Tolbert's constitutional right to a fair trial, the Court must determine if the skin particle would have played a significant role in Tolbert's case. To play a significant role in Tolbert's case, the exculpatory nature and value of the skin particle must have been apparent before it was lost, and been of such a nature that Tolbert could not obtain comparable evidence by other means. Id. at 1373. ¶ 35. This Court then went on to find that the skin particle would not have played any significant role at trial. Id. at 1373. ¶ 36. In the case sub judice, we must determine if the evidence alleged missing by Duplantis would have played a significant role in his trial. In so doing, we shall consider the apparent exculpatory nature of this evidence before it was lost in light of the evidence that was readily available at trial. Additionally, we will consider whether the lost evidence was of such a nature that Duplantis could not have obtained comparable evidence by other means.
¶ 37. Considering the evidence presented in the lower court, we do not find that the absence of any such casts rises to the level of reversible error. There is nothing in the record to indicate that such casts were ever taken. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that both Duplantis and Strickland were present in Charlene Thrash's residence at some point prior to trial. Both Duplantis and Strickland's fingerprints were found in the house. Phone calls were placed to both the Lauderdale County Jail and Duplantis' stepfather on the morning of Gary Thrash's murder. In short, Duplantis was present in Charlene Thrash's residence on the day of this murder. Plaster casts of tire tracks and footprints could not have proven otherwise.
¶ 38. Duplantis contends that he would have been able to prove that the bolt cutters were not in fact the murder weapon in this case had the requested fireplace poker and shovel been produced to him. We disagree. ¶ 39. Dr. Stephen Hayne performed forensic testing on the bolt cutters recovered from Gary Thrash's abandoned truck. The tests recovered human hair, blood and tissue. The tests also revealed that Thrash's fatal wounds were inflicted by an object similar to these bolt cutters. If another object had been used to facilitate this heinous crime, the testing would have revealed such. It did not. Duplantis did not suffer any material prejudice to his defense due to the absence of this evidence.
¶ 40. Although Duplantis indicates that he was not allowed to inspect the clothes that were confiscated from him, the record reflects differently. At the hearing on Duplantis' motion to dismiss, the state said, BY MR. TURNER: We have looked in Newton County and found a box of clothes, essentially that's what it was, that was taken by Mr. Harpole to show to Mr. Duplantis in Madison County, and then we have taken everything that our office had to show Mr. Duplantis in Madison County, but that's all we have. ¶ 41. Duplantis does not allege that these clothes were not the ones confiscated from him. The state suggests that they were. There is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Therefore, we find that Duplantis was fully aware of the potential exculpatory value of this evidence and chose to ignore it. ¶ 42. After a clear review of the trial record and transcripts, we do not believe Duplantis was prejudiced in the least bit by the absence of this alleged evidence. Duplantis fails to present any compelling evidence of fraud or intentional suppression of the truth on the state's behalf. ¶ 43. Applying the Tolbert standard, this assignment is rejected.