Morris v. State
Docket Number: | 2000-CT-00822-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-CT-00822-SCT ; 2000-CT-00822-SCT ; 2000-KA-00822-COA |
|
Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-16-2006 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed and the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Coahoma County is Reinstated and Affirmed. |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault on law enforcement officer - Exclusion of defense witnesses - Discovery violations - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-1999 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: Morris was convicted of simple assault upon a law enforcement officer and sentenced to five years with one and one-half of those years suspended. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 99-0052 |
|
Note: | The supreme court found the State did not commit any discovery violations that resulted in prejudice to Morris; that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Morris’s witnesses; and that the verdict was amply supported by the evidence. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the judgment of and sentenced imposed by the Circuit Court of Coahoma County. See original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/OPINIONS/CO29227.PDF |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Christopher Morris |
DEREK D. HOPSON, SR., HOWARD BROWN |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
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: | Simple assault on law enforcement officer - Exclusion of defense witnesses - Discovery violations - Sufficiency of evidence |
Summary of the Facts: | Christopher Morris was convicted of simple assault upon a law enforcement officer and sentenced to five years with one and one-half of those years suspended. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of defense witnesses The Court of Appeals held that it was error for the circuit court to exclude the testimony of two defense witnesses, Tasha Leflore and Nathaniel Parish. The State argues that because Morris did not raise this issue on appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have addressed it; the actual issue raised by Morris was whether discovery violations by the police and district attorney’s office warranted a reversal of the circuit court’s verdict or a new trial; and it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to address this issue because issues not raised in an appellate brief should not be considered on appeal. The Court of Appeals properly addressed the issue because it implicates a basic constitutional right – the Sixth Amendment’s Compulsory Process Clause. However, if the circuit court determines that the defendant’s discovery violation is willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, the newly-discovered evidence or witnesses may be excluded. Morris’ discovery violation was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, and therefore the circuit court, even though it did not use the proper procedure, properly excluded the evidence. The only reason proffered by Morris for failure to designate these witnesses sooner was the police department’s failure to find these witnesses and give the names to Morris through discovery. Morris violated the discovery rule by failing to give the State the defense’s witness list when the State provided its list to defense counsel. Defense counsel waited until the weekend prior to the trial, which began on a Monday, to find defense witnesses. Instead of giving the list of defense witnesses to the State one or two days prior to trial, defense counsel waited until the morning the trial began. Issue 2: Discovery violations Morris argues that the State committed serious discovery violations by failing to provide the names of witnesses potentially helpful to Morris’ case in a timely fashion. However, the record is devoid of any evidence of discovery violations or undue delay by the State in producing the identities of potential witnesses, and Morris failed to present any evidence or testimony that would lead to the conclusion that the State waited to produce a list of witnesses to the defense. Specifically concerning the two witnesses at issue in this appeal, Morris simply made no showing how the police could have known of them and thus failed to disclose them. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Morris argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction against him. The State produced evidence and witnesses tending to show that Morris did indeed commit simple assault upon a police officer. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court