Opinion ID: 1755805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged failure to disclose exculpatory information regarding BancorpSouth Bank's payment to the putative victim.

Text: ¶ 33. We hold that this issue is procedurally barred. Montgomery raises this issue for the first time on appeal. [W]e cannot find that a trial judge committed reversible error on a matter not brought before him to consider. Jackson v. State, 856 So.2d 412, 415 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (quoting Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280, 313 (Miss.1998)). ¶ 34. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this issue lacks merit in fact and in law. Montgomery claims that this evidence would have been exculpatory. However, this evidence would have instead been incriminating by showing that the bank recognized the fact that Montgomery had committed a wrong and the bank did not catch it. In Gulley v. State, 779 So.2d 1140, 1152 (Miss.Ct.App.2001), Gulley's employer made restitution to the victims for embezzled money taken by Gulley. The Court of Appeals held that [t]he return of the funds [by the employer] does not negate Gully's actions of illegally commingling and converting the funds for his own use. Id. The facts still remain that Montgomery embezzled the money and was convicted of the same by a jury of her peers. We are unable to conclude how such evidence would have been exculpatory. Consequently, this issue is both procedurally barred and without merit.