Opinion ID: 1111148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS JOE NATHAN McFARLAND?

Text: The appellant, Thurmon Darby, argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Joe Nathan McFarland to testify for Darby in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections Fourteen and Twenty-Six of the Mississippi Constitution. Darby argues that the trial court's refusal to allow McFarland to testify constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court and was harmful error. Prior to trial, counsel for the State contacted defense counsel to see if he had been provided with all the discovery he needed in order to represent Darby. Defense counsel admitted he had been provided some discovery by another attorney who had previously represented Darby. However, defense counsel refused to accept a list of witnesses to be called by the State. This refusal was verified in the record several times by the attorney for the State, and by defense counsel's own testimony. Counsel for the defense believed that if he refused to accept the State's list of witnesses to be called that he did not have to produce a list of the witnesses he intended to call. At trial, the State objected to all of the defense witnesses being allowed to testify. The State argued that the list had been intentionally withheld in violation of Rule 4.06 Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice. The trial court overruled the objection. All of the witnesses of the defense, except Joe Nathan McFarland, were allowed to testify. The court excluded McFarland's testimony because his name was not on the list given to the State by Darby's counsel even after the trial court held a hearing on the State's motion to exclude defense witnesses for Rule 4.06 violations. The trial court heard McFarland's testimony in the absence of the jury; but, refused to allow him to testify in front of the jury. It is clear that defense counsel deliberately violated Rule 4.06. The relevant parts of Rule 4.06 reads as follows: If the defendant requests discovery under this rule, the defendant shall, subject to constitutional limitations, disclose to the prosecutor and permit him to inspect, copy, test and photograph, the following information and material which corresponds to that which the defendant sought and which is in the possession or control of the defendant or his counsel: (1) Names and addresses of all witnesses in chief proposed to be offered by the defendant at trial; (2) Exhibit any physical evidence and photos to be offered in evidence; and (3) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case. Defense counsel shall make the foregoing disclosures simultaneously with the corresponding disclosure from the prosecutor. Except as is otherwise provided or in cases where the witness would be forced to reveal self-incriminating evidence, neither the counsel for the parties nor other prosecution or defense personnel shall advise persons having relevant material or information, except the accused, to refrain from discussing the case with opposing counsel or showing opposing counsel any relevant material, nor shall they otherwise impede opposing counsel's investigation of the case. Defense counsel argues that there is no rule or case mandating at exactly what time the attorneys should provide discovery. However, Rule 4.06 specifically states, Defense counsel shall make the foregoing disclosures simultaneously with the corresponding disclosure from the prosecutor. Defense counsel admitted that the counsel for the prosecution had given the list of witnesses the State intended to call to Darby's original attorney who in turn gave the list to defense counsel. Defense counsel also admitted that the attorney for the State contacted him and attempted to provide discovery to him again but he refused so that he would not be required to reciprocate. It is readily ascertainable that Rule 4.06 applies to defense attorneys as well as prosecutors and mandates that defense attorneys provide discovery. All one has to do is read Rule 4.06 where it states in pertinent part: If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery of material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. Willful violation by counsel of an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions by the court. (Emphasis added) The rule refers to a party rather than the State. Any other interpretation would be in error. The court did remove the jury from the courtroom to allow McFarland to testify. Therefore, the State was allowed to become familiar with the undisclosed evidence as is required when the court is faced with a discovery violation. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987). There are normally two other steps to be taken in situations involving discovery violations. If the party complaining of the discovery violation, after viewing or otherwise becoming familiar with the undisclosed evidence, 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 a waiver of the issue. The State failed to request a continuance in the case sub judice. The State simply objected to its admission. In the event that the State had requested a continuance the defendant would have had to decide whether or not to proceed to trial and forego using the undisclosed evidence. If the defendant would not be willing to proceed without the evidence, the trial court should grant the requested continuance. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987). The requirements originally set forth in Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983) (Robertson, J., specially concurring) and upheld in Cole v. State, supra were not followed in the case sub judice. We recognize that even-handed application of Rule 4.06 requires the same procedure to be followed when the State objects to testimony because of a defendant's violation as when the defendant objects for the same reason. Darghtry v. State, 530 So.2d 27 (Miss. 1988). However, as recognized by Presiding Justice Hawkins in Darghtry v. State, supra , federal constitutional law, set forth in Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, ___, 108 S.Ct. 646, 655, 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 814 (1988) upholds the exclusion sanction in cases where the defendant's discovery violation was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage. The record reveals that defense counsel violated discovery even after the court held a hearing on the State's motion to exclude defense witnesses for Rule 4.06 violations. The evidence in the record is uncontroverted that the violations were willful. We find, in light of the fact that the violation was willful, that the trial court committed no error in excluding the testimony of the witness. However, we limit this holding to the cases in which the violations are intentional and this opinion is in no way intended to compromise our law regarding the procedure set forth in Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983), and Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987). We reverse and remand for a new trial based on Assignment of Error I. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur as to parts I, II, and III. ROBERTSON, J., concurs as to part IV. HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and SULLIVAN, J., concur in part and dissent in part as to part IV with written opinion. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ., dissent with separate written opinion.