 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tanner v. State5/4/2000
discovered witness...
2. If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude 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.
. Tanner was not unfairly surprised or unduly prejudiced in the present case. Tanner was notified at least 10 days prior to Shaddix's testimony that Shaddix was a potential witness. Although there was some dispute regarding whether the State later told Tanner Shaddix would not testify, Tanner was still given an extra day to gather the information he had yet to receive. First, since Shaddix was represented by counsel, Tanner would have been unable to interview the witness at any point. Second, there was no written statement for Tanner to receive. Third, Tanner was given an extra day to review Thaggard's written notes and discuss the case with him. Finally, Tanner failed to request a continuance, mistrial, or inform the court he was unfairly surprised or unduly prejudiced before Shaddix testified on October 13, 1997. The trial court gave Tanner an extra day to speak with Thaggard. Tanner had the duty to inform the trial court that he did not have adequate time to meet the evidence and request a further continuance. Therefore, this Court finds the trial court did not err by allowing the testimony of Austin Shaddix.
VI.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN LIMITING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF AUSTIN SHADDIX
. Tanner asserts the trial court erred by prohibiting Tanner from questioning the prosecution's chief witness, Austin Shaddix, about whether he made a deal with the prosecution in exchange for his testimony. Tanner further asserts that, although he testified to the contrary, Shaddix did receive favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony.
. "When a witness has entered into an agreement with the State which guarantees his immunity or leniency in exchange for his testimony, that agreement is a proper subject for cross-examination." Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Miss. 1987).
Although Tanner asserts that he was prohibited from questioning Shaddix about whether he made a deal with the State in exchange for his testimony, a careful review of the record suggests otherwise:
Q: ...I understand there is no deal on the table, so I am not trying to misrepresent that; Is that right?
A: That's right.
Q: You said you are just hoping for a deal; is that right?
A: I really haven't even got their say that I have got any hope.
Tanner was further allowed to question Shaddix regarding the length of time he would remain in jail without a deal from the State. Tanner also asked Shaddix about his past criminal history, which included crimes for dishonesty, receipt of stolen goods, and possession of controlled substances. Based upon those questions, the jury was well informed and briefed on the possible motives behind Shaddix's testimony. Therefore, Tanner's argument that his cross-examination of Shaddix was limited is without merit.
. Tanner further asserts that Shaddix, contrary to his testimony at trial, did receive favorable treatment from the State.
In support of his argument, Tanner includes the following language from the transcript of Shaddix's hearing in his record excerpts:
The Court: Any statement you would like to make to the Court?
Mr. Klotz: Yes, sir, Judge, just an explanation of why we're here. Mr. Shaddix testified in B
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|