Opinion ID: 1812612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial court err in permitting Officer Stork to testify?

Text: Appellant contends that he was not informed before trial that Officer Stork would testify in the case, that an alternate juror was acquainted with Stork, and that he was prejudiced by that situation. The record is undisputed that the entire file of the State's investigation was made available to appellant and no list of witnesses was requested from the State. Officer Stork's report was in that file and was available to the appellant. Appellant had access to the entire State file. Even so, there is no obligation on the part of the State to furnish the appellant with a list of its witnesses. Tapp v. State, 347 So.2d 974 (Miss. 1977); Boyd v. State, 253 Miss. 98, 175 So.2d 132 (1965); McDaniel v. State, 191 Miss. 854, 4 So.2d 355 (1941). Furthermore, the record indicates that there was no discussion between the alternate juror and the panel about the facts of the case, and there is no indication that the jury was tainted or that any prejudice resulted to the appellant because of the fact that Officer Stork and the alternate juror were acquainted. There is no merit in this assignment.