Patterson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00466-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00466-COA ; 2010-KA-00466-COA ; 2010-CT-00466-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-10-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Delivery of controlled substance - Continuance - Discovery violation Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., and Myers, J. Dissenting Author : Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissent Without Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: JNOV Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-24-2010 Appealed from: Choctaw County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Convicted of Delivery of a Controlled Substance and Sentenced to Fifteen Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections With Eight Years to Serve and Seven Years Suspended District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2010-012CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jerome Patterson |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | Delivery of controlled substance - Continuance - Discovery violation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jerome Patterson was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to fifteen years with eight years to serve and seven years suspended. Patterson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Patterson argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for a continuance and that the State’s refusal to reveal pertinent information to the defense regarding its key witness until the eve of the trial denied Patterson a fair trial. When a prosecutor reveals evidence on the eve of trial that should have been disclosed earlier, and when that evidence renders most of the defense’s trial preparations worthless, then the only effective remedy is a continuance. Otherwise, the defense attorney is left with inadequate time and opportunity to investigate the newly arisen evidence, evaluate its trustworthiness, discuss its implications with his client, allow time for due consideration thereof, and, if necessary, to develop a new trial strategy. In this case, the trial was set less than thirty days after Patterson’s indictment, placing his counsel at an automatic disadvantage in preparing the case. Nonetheless, the State further handicapped the defense by failing to provide the defense with the name of the State’s star trial witness, a confidential informant claiming to have been present during the alleged crime, until approximately two days before the trial. Furthermore, the defense was not provided the witness’s address, statements, or any other information at the time it received the witness’s name. The State’s abuse of the rules of discovery unquestionably handicapped the defense in formulating a trial strategy. Despite a timely request for discovery from the defense, a motion to compel discovery, and a motion to continue the case, Patterson was blatantly denied the rights granted to him under the rules of discovery. Thus, Patterson was denied a fair trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
