Densmore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-00981-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00981-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-19-2009 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Disclosure of informant's identity - URCCC 9.04(B)(2) - Continuance Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Graves, P.J., Dickinson and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Pierce, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Carlson, P.J., Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-23-2008 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: Densmore was found guilty of one count of the sale of cocaine and was sentenced to serve 30 years as an habitual offender. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 634-07 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RELIOUS DENSMORE |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. TEDDER | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sale of cocaine - Disclosure of informant's identity - URCCC 9.04(B)(2) - Continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Relious Densmore was found guilty of one count of sale of cocaine and was sentenced to serve thirty years as an habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Densmore argues that the eleventh-hour disclosure of the State’s confidential informant was manifestly unjust and prejudicial, and that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a continuance. URCCC 9.04(B)(2) provides that the the informant’s identity must be disclosed if a failure to disclose would infringe upon the constitutional rights of the accused or unless the informant was or depicts himself/herself as an eyewitness to the event or events constituting the charge against the defendant. In this case, the CI was the State’s main witness and the only eyewitness to the events giving rise to the charge against Densmore. In accordance with Rules 9.04(A)(1) and 9.04(B)(2), the prosecution was required to disclose the CI’s name and address to Densmore prior to the day of trial. The State did not divulge the identity of the CI until the day of trial. Although the defense timely asked for a continuance, the trial proceeded in short order, and the CI was allowed to testify. Although the trial judge did grant a brief recess to allow Densmore to examine information about the CI from the NCIC report, merely giving defense counsel a recess within which he may interview the newly-found witness or examine the newly-discovered document is not sufficient to prevent prejudice to the defendant. The State argues that Densmore has failed to preserve the denial of a continuance for appellate review because he did not reassert the issue in his motion for a new trial. However, in cases where the motion for a continuance is based upon a last-minute disclosure of a key piece of evidence, the defendant is not required to reassert the error in a motion for new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
