Chad Willard v. State of Mississippi
219 So. 3d 569
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (Sally) alleged sexual battery by Chad Willard after an overnight drinking episode at a mobile home; seminal fluid on her underwear matched Willard’s DNA.
- Several roommates (including Dalton and Dylan Willard) were present; Dylan was a potential defense witness whose location was uncertain until trial.
- The State called forensic and medical witnesses; after the State rested, defense located Dylan and announced he would be the sole defense witness to impeach Sally.
- Prosecutor objected on discovery grounds; the trial court excluded portions of Dylan’s impeachment testimony (that Sally got into bed and remained after Dylan left) as a discovery violation but allowed limited testimony about Sally’s shame and presence until May 16.
- Jury convicted Willard of sexual battery; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years without parole. Willard appealed, arguing the exclusion of Dylan’s testimony and other trial errors.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the exclusion was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial because Dylan’s testimony bore on the victim’s credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Willard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Dylan’s testimony for discovery violation | Exclusion was improper; Dylan’s testimony would impeach victim and was disclosed as soon as Dylan was found | Late disclosure prejudiced State and justified exclusion to prevent trial by ambush | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion absent evidence defendant sought tactical advantage; testimony was prejudicial and warranted new trial |
| Jury instruction S-6 (uncorroborated victim testimony sufficient) | Instruction improperly comments on evidence and risks reducing State’s burden | Instruction states correct legal principle and other instructions preserved reasonable-doubt standard | No reversible error under controlling Mississippi precedent (Parks), though other jurisdictions have criticized such instructions |
| Denial of new trial (related to evidence exclusion) | Exclusion of critical impeachment evidence warranted new trial | Exclusion was appropriate sanction for discovery violation | New trial required due to prejudice from excluded testimony |
| Ineffective assistance and other pro se claims | (Pro se) Trial counsel failed on multiple fronts including witness investigation and speedy trial issues | Not addressed on merits because reversal on exclusion made other issues moot | Court deemed remaining issues moot after reversal; did not decide ineffectiveness claim on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. State, 145 So. 3d 1143 (2014) (discusses standards for discovery violations and exclusion of evidence)
- Overton v. State, 195 So. 3d 715 (2016) (requires record evidence of deliberate discovery violation before exclusion is appropriate)
- Pelletier v. State, 207 So. 3d 1263 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (upheld exclusion where defendant withheld witness identity and offered no excuse)
- Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968 (2007) (exclusion of prior inconsistent statement can prejudice defendant when victim credibility is crucial)
- Skaggs v. State, 676 So. 2d 897 (1996) (exclusion of evidence affecting accuser’s credibility can be reversible error)
- Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2003) (criticized jury instruction permitting conviction on uncorroborated victim testimony as misleading the jury)