Opinion ID: 1096207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce as rebuttal witnesses three persons who had sat in the courtroom during the trial.

Text: Baine complains that the state violated a nondiscretionary right of witness exclusion when, with full knowledge and without notifying the court that the witnesses had attended the trial, it presented three rebuttal witnesses, Janet Smith, her daughter, Jeannie Smith, and Belinda Marconi. Baine further asserts that, because he allegedly had abused other daughters of Janet Smith, she and her daughter bore a material interest in the case sub judice. The sole prejudicial testimony of which Baine complains addresses whether he only held small babies on his lap, in comparison to Susie's declarations that he abused her while she sat in his lap. The record shows that before trial the state indicated its intent to call the parents of alleged victims, including the parents of Smith. The state indicated its intent to call these persons in order to elicit testimony of their children's out-of-court declarations. The circuit clerk's March 24, 1988 witness list includes the names of Janet Smith, Jeannie Smith, and Belinda Marconi. On July 25, 1988, as previously stated, the court severed Counts III and IV of the indictment. Remaining counts I and II listed Daley as the sole child-victim. Having severed two counts that related to other alleged victims, the court denied a defense motion to exclude from the courtroom witnesses in other cases. After the jury had been sworn in, the defense again moved that potential witnesses in the severed counts, III and IV, be excluded from the courtroom. The court denied the motion. During the cross-examination of Ms. Daley, she testified, I have picked [Susie] up where she was sitting in his lap in the den. When the prosecutor asked Susie, When he touches you, where do you normally sit? Susie replied, In his lap. Other witnesses also testified to Baine's positioning of children on his lap. The defendant's daughter-in-law occasionally worked at the center during the year before trial. She testified that she saw no children over the age of three sit in her father-in-law's lap. During trial, Janet Smith, young Jeannie Smith, and Belinda Marconi approached the district attorney because they had heard testimony they believed not to be true. They had not expected to be called as witnesses in this case. The district attorney asked the three rebuttal witnesses not to return to the courtroom as an observer. In a post-trial hearing, Smith stated that in no way whatsoever did she tailor her testimony to that which she had heard. She stated, I just wanted the truth to be known. She also commented, It's just real disturbing to hear the untruths. On rebuttal, Belinda Marconi testified that she saw Baine with children in his lap just about every time I walked in the facility, including her six-year-old. Janet Smith testified that, when two of her daughters were five and six, and later, eight and nine, respectively, she saw them both sitting on Baine's lap. Smith had never before discussed with the state the issues to which she testified on rebuttal. Jeannie Smith, twelve years old when she stopped attending the day-care center, did not testify on the subject of whether children sat in Baine's lap. On post-trial cross-examination, Jeannie stated that she had volunteered to testify and had not made anything up, nor had she discussed her testimony with other potential rebuttal witnesses. After the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts, the court held a hearing on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternative, for a new trial. The court noted that the witness exclusion rule had been invoked in this case. The court, however, found no evidence of connivance or circumvention of the exclusion rule: the court noted that the rule could not have applied to persons who did not expect to be witnesses; and the state did not seek to influence the witnesses. Further, the court noted that the defense did not object to the rebuttal witnesses until after the case's completion. The court reasoned that, even if it declared a mistrial, testimony at a new trial would not differ from that adduced in the instant case. The court found the rebuttal witnesses truthful and their testimony not significantly prejudicial. Thus, the court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. Regarding scope of review, this Court will not per se reverse a trial court for failing to order a mistrial after a witness exclusion rule violation. The resultant degree of prejudice to the defendant must first demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Douglas v. State, 525 So.2d 1312, 1318 (Miss. 1988). Mississippi's procedural rule regarding the exclusion of witnesses states, At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. Miss.R.Evid. 615. Often called the rule, the witness-exclusion rule serves to discourage a witness's tailoring her testimony to what she has heard from the stand and the rule serves to facilitate exposing false testimony. Doby v. State, 532 So.2d 584, 589 (Miss. 1988); Moffett v. State, 540 So.2d 1313, 1317 (Miss. 1989). As indicated by the mandatory language of the rule, the trial court does not have any discretion in its application; the court must apply it when a party invokes it. Douglas v. State, 525 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss. 1988). Baine cites United States v. Ell 718 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir.1983) for the proposition that a party holds a nondiscretionary right of witness exclusion. Once a witness has violated the rule, however, the remedy lies within the court's discretion. Douglas, 525 So.2d at 1317 (citing United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1076 (5th Cir.1978)). Remedies may include prospectively excluding the witness where prejudice will otherwise ensue; striking the witness's testimony where connivance gave rise to the testimony; striking the witness's testimony where the testimony gave rise to prejudice; or, most appropriately, allowing the other party to subject the witness to a full-bore cross-examination on the facts of the rule violation. Douglas, 525 So.2d at 1317 (citing United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975, 981 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1327 (11th Cir.1983); Warren, 578 F.2d at 1076, n. 16). The court may also instruct the jury that it may consider the rule violation when the jury evaluates the violating witness's credibility. Douglas, 525 So.2d at 1317 (citing Jimenez, 780 F.2d at 981; United States v. Cox, 752 F.2d 741, 748 (1st Cir.1985). Because of the state's failure in its duty to notify the court, the state deprived the court of the ability to implement any of the remedies this Court has recommended. It was too late to instruct the jury, allow full-bore cross-examination before the jury, or even strike the testimony. Based on that hearing, the court did not find sufficient prejudice to warrant a new trial. This Court fortunately has the benefit of the trial court's detailed fact-finding on which it based its ruling. Importantly, the trial court considered the rebuttal testimony not so prejudicial that it would be really prejudicial to the defense's case. Equally importantly, the court found that the witnesses had not attended prior proceedings or testified out of any connivance. Also, having no choice but to judge credibility, the court found that witnesses to have been truthful and their testimony, untailored. Perhaps as a matter of judicial economy, the court noted that a new trial would not produce different evidence. According deference to the trial court's searching inquiry, this Court finds the error harmless. Baines also lacks merit in his factually mistaken assertion that the state had earlier served the rebuttal witnesses with subpoenas. The record does not support his allegation. The witnesses' names do appear on the list of potential witnesses, which was prepared before severing the trials of other complainants. Given the trial court's thorough examination with the vigorous participation of the defense the trial court committed no abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS P.J., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion.