Harper v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01221-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-02-2003
Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault & Capital murder - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04(E)
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-03-2002
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: COUNT I-CAPITAL MURDER; COUNTS II, III & IV-AGGRAVATED ASSAULT; DEFENDANT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS, SENTENCED TO SERVE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE ON COUNT I; TWENTY YEARS ON EACH OF COUNTS II, III, AND IV, ALL TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.
Case Number: 01-0016

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Boris Harper




CHARLES E. WEBSTER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN  

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: Aggravated assault & Capital murder - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04(E)

Summary of the Facts: Boris Harper was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and one count of capital murder. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Harper argues that it was reversible error for the State to fail to disclose a significant change in the statement of a witness regarding her identification of Harper as a perpetrator. URCCC 9.04(E) requires each party to a criminal prosecution to supplement discovery in a timely fashion including substantive changes in a prior statement. It is clear from testimony that the investigator assigned to the case was aware in advance of trial of what the witness’s testimony would be. Although this is some evidence of a discovery violation, Harper had a duty to object unless there was plain error affecting a fundamental right. The discrepancy between the testimony of the witness and her discovery answer is in the timing of her recognition of Harper. Harper did not object at trial, and the witness's somewhat varying claims as to just when she realized Harper's identity did not prejudice him. Not only was the testimony a positive identification in either version, but Harper was identified in court by various witnesses to the crime.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court