Casey v. State, 256 So. 3d 596

Victim Johnny Holmes was shot and robbed after entering a car driven by Jonathan Young; Young later identified Kendrick Casey as the shooter. No weapon was recovered.
Casey and Young were indicted for aggravated assault and armed robbery; Young pleaded to accessory after the fact and testified against Casey.
Casey filed a notice of alibi asserting he was with Jessica Orr; counsel later added that Orr's mother, Annette Newsome, would corroborate.
Defense counsel repeatedly attempted (over months) to serve subpoenas on Orr and Newsome; both were allegedly avoiding service. The court granted multiple continuances over ~2 years.
On the morning of trial, counsel moved for a continuance and for subpoenas instanter (bench warrants) to compel Orr and Newsome; the trial court denied both requests.
Trial proceeded, Casey was convicted on both counts, sentenced as a habitual offender to life concurrent terms, and appealed the denials of the continuance and subpoenas instanter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Casey)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether denial of last-minute continuance was error	Denial prevented presentation of alibi witnesses who were dodging service, causing prejudice	Court had already granted multiple continuances and defense had ample time to secure witnesses	Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; no manifest injustice shown (affirmed)
Whether court erred in refusing to issue subpoenas instanter for alibi witnesses	Court should have compelled attendance (bench warrants) because witnesses were avoiding service and their testimony was material to alibi	Issue had been known for months; defense failed to seek court assistance earlier and had assurances witnesses would be produced after earlier continuances	Majority: no error — court properly exercised discretion given repeated continuances and late request; Dissent: issuance should have been mandatory because defendant showed colorable need; would reverse and remand
Whether denial of subpoenas instanter violated Sixth Amendment compulsory-process right	Compulsory process required when defendant shows colorable need for material, relevant witnesses; denial thwarted ability to present defense	Right is not absolute; court did not arbitrarily deny assistance and considered history of delays and assurances	Majority: no Sixth Amendment violation; discretionary denial affirmed. Dissent: denial was abuse of discretion and violated compulsory-process/due process rights, warranting new trial

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (recognizes right to present witnesses as fundamental to due process)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to offer and compel attendance of witnesses is central to a defendant's right to present a defense)
Patton v. State, 109 So.3d 66 (Miss. 2012) (defendant must show a "colorable need" and materiality for compulsory process)
Hentz v. State, 542 So.2d 914 (Miss. 1989) (quashing subpoenas that deprived defendant of a defense required reversal)
United States v. Moudy, 462 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1972) (denial of subpoena for material witness close to trial can be reversible error)
Pilgrim v. State, 19 So.3d 148 (discusses manifest injustice standard for continuance denials)
Pauley v. State, 113 So.3d 557 (recognizes broad trial-court discretion to grant or deny continuances)