 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crime Laboratory v. Blenden6/24/1999
ude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial." URCCC 9.04(I) (1998).
. The sanctions of excluding the evidence or granting a continuance or a mistrial are not the only sanctions within the trial court's discretion to impose. Nor, is the trial court limited in the imposition of sanctions to only one form of sanction. Additionally or alternatively, discovery violations may subject an attorney in a criminal trial to monetary sanctions either under the provisions of URCCC 1.03 (" ny person embraced within these rules who violates the provisions hereof may be subjected to sanctions, contempt proceedings or other disciplinary actions imposed or initiated by the court."), URCCC 9.04 (willful violations may result in sanctions), or under the trial court's inherent authority to control proceedings before it. This Court, in Selleck v. S.F. Cockrell Trucking, Inc., 517 So. 2d 558, 560 (Miss. 1987), stated as follows:
"In Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So. 2d 1366, 1370 (Miss.1983), we held that even where there is no specific statutory authority for imposing sanctions, courts have an inherent power to protect the integrity of their processes, and may impose sanctions in order to do so. More recently, in Vicksburg Refining, Inc. v. Energy Resources Ltd., 512 So. 2d 901 (Miss.1987), we held that " hen counsel's carelessness causes his opponent to expend time and money needlessly, it is not an abuse of discretion for the court to require offending counsel to pay for his mistake, especially where ... out-of-town travel was involved." Id. at 902. In the case at bar, we conclude that where a party's intentional misconduct causes the opposing party to expend time and money needlessly, then attorney's fees and expenses should be awarded to the wronged party. Although not all misconduct would warrant such an award, Aeroglide Corporation v. Whitehead, 433 So. 2d 952 (Miss.1983)..."
. Harrison County argues that the expenditure of public funds is strictly a legislative function and that the trial court's ruling that Harrison County is responsible for paying the monetary sanctions is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. This State's Legislature has expressed its intent to cloak this State and its political subdivisions in sovereign immunity by providing that the State of Mississippi is not subject to liability for the wrongs of its employees while acting within the scope of their duties. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-3 (Supp. 1998). The Legislature has waived immunity for "claims for money damages arising out of the torts of such governmental entities and the torts of their employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5 (Supp. 1998). Even where immunity is waived, the awarding of attorneys fees is prohibited unless specifically authorized by law. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46- 15(2) (Supp. 1998). The Legislature has provided that costs and attorney's fees may be awarded against a party for litigation abuses, in civil cases. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-5 (Supp. 1998). Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-11 (Supp. 1998), further provides that § 11-55-5 applies "in all cases unless attorney's fees are otherwise specifically provided by statute or court rule, in which case the provision allowing the greater award shall prevail." However, § 11-55-11is not applicable in the context of a criminal case.
. Nonetheless, this Court finds that the Legislative intent was not to immunize against lawfully imposed sanctions in criminal cases. Rather by enacting § 11-46-3 the Legislature sought to prevent a party from bringing the State into court and thereby subjecting the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|