Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-00844-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00844-COA ; 2008-KA-00844-COA ; 2008-CT-00844-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-03-2011 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - M.R.A.P. 17(h) - Exclusion of testimony - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Lamar, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-06-2007 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: L. BRELAND HILBURN Disposition: On the second day of the trial, Williams’s attorney told the judge that Herrington’s story about the gun had been discovered by the defense only that day. Nevertheless, the evidence was excluded, and Williams was convicted. District Attorney: ROBERT SHULER SMITH Case Number: 03-0-969 |
|
| Consolidated: The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO60003.pdf | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Harvey Williams, Jr. a/k/a Smokie |
MERRIDA COXWELL, CHARLES RICHARD MULLINS, JANE E. TUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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: | Murder - M.R.A.P. 17(h) - Exclusion of testimony - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harvey “Smokie” Williams, Jr. was convicted of murder. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 17(h), the Court limits its review to whether the trial court should have excluded portions of the testimony of a bouncer at the club where the incident occurred who would have testified that he personally had denied entry to the victim earlier that night because the victim had a gun on his person. The evidence was excluded based on an alleged discovery violation. Williams complied with pretrial discovery requirements, disclosing the witness’s name and a summary of his testimony, but purportedly discovered new information from the witness during the trial. The trial court allowed the witness to testify, but excluded the statements purportedly discovered recently by the defense and not included in the discovery provided to the State. Either side may use newly discovered information subject to the requirements of URCCC 9.04. The plain language of the rule requires only disclosure of information and materials known or that would have become known by the exercise of due diligence and prompt disclosure of newly discovered information. The trial court did not specifically find that the information regarding the victim’s possession of a gun actually was known by the defense, that it would have been known by due diligence, or that it was not promptly disclosed to the State once it was known. If none of these elements was present, then there was no discovery violation at all. In the context of discovery violations, exclusion of evidence is a radical sanction that should rarely be used. If the trial court determines that the defendant's discovery violation is willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, however, the newly discovered evidence or witnesses may be excluded. In this case, the defense provided discovery to the State, including summaries of witness testimony. The defense attorney told the judge that the witness later had provided him with an additional fact, which was quickly disclosed to the State, and nothing in the record indicates otherwise. Considering the importance of this testimony to Williams’ case, a sanction less harsh than exclusion of defense testimony, if any, should have been imposed. Contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, this error was not harmless. Without this testimony, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the victim was unarmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
