Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing the testimony of austin shaddix

Text: ¶ 38. Tanner argues that Shaddix's testimony was an unfair surprise which prevented Tanner from properly preparing for trial. Tanner further claims that he did not receive adequate notice of the State's intent to use Shaddix as a witness. Furthermore, Tanner points out that this case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, until the testimony of the surprise witness. ¶ 39. According to Shaddix's testimony, sometime in July of 1997, Tanner told Shaddix that he killed Wood. In October of 1997, Shaddix's conscience began to bother him, and he asked his wife to contact the State. On October 3, 1997, at 4:27 p.m., the State informed Tanner about Shaddix, where he was located, and the substance of his testimony. According to Tanner, however, the State subsequently said they were not going to call Shaddix as a witness. On Friday afternoon (of the week preceding the trial), the State once again informed Tanner that Shaddix was a potential witness. On Monday, October 12, 1997, the State informed Tanner that Shaddix would be called as a witness the next morning. A hearing was held on Tanner's motion, where Tanner objected to Shaddix testifying, specifically noting that he had not received a copy of Shaddix's statement, his criminal record, or information regarding whether Shaddix had received any promises in exchange for his testimony. ¶ 40. The trial court held that Tanner was entitled to speak with the State's investigator, Doc Thaggard. Thaggard said there was no written statement, but that he did have some written notes from his interview with Shaddix. The trial court held that Tanner was entitled to receive those notes and recessed until the next day. Tanner was also provided with a copy of Shaddix's criminal history late Monday afternoon, the day before Shaddix's testimony. According to Tanner, the criminal record was in coded form and not useful. Tanner further asserts they were unable to speak with Shaddix, since he was following the advice of counsel for an unrelated burglary charge. ¶ 41. Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules sets forth the appropriate procedures and remedies for the trial court to consider when evaluating discovery violations. Rule 9.041 provides in relevant part as follows: If during the course of trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed to the defense as required by these rules, and the defense objects to the introduction for that reason, the court shall act as follows: 1. Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness ... 2. If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial. ¶ 42. Tanner was not unfairly surprised or unduly prejudiced in the present case. Tanner was notified at least 10 days prior to Shaddix's testimony that Shaddix was a potential witness. Although there was some dispute regarding whether the State later told Tanner Shaddix would not testify, Tanner was still given an extra day to gather the information he had yet to receive. First, since Shaddix was represented by counsel, Tanner would have been unable to interview the witness at any point. Second, there was no written statement for Tanner to receive. Third, Tanner was given an extra day to review Thaggard's written notes and discuss the case with him. Finally, Tanner failed to request a continuance, mistrial, or inform the court he was unfairly surprised or unduly prejudiced before Shaddix testified on October 13, 1997. The trial court gave Tanner an extra day to speak with Thaggard. Tanner had the duty to inform the trial court that he did not have adequate time to meet the evidence and request a further continuance. Therefore, this Court finds the trial court did not err by allowing the testimony of Austin Shaddix.