David Carroll Smith a/k/a David Smith v. State of Mississippi, 371 So.3d 783

Victim ("Adam"), an 11‑year‑old with developmental disabilities, lived with his father and Lisa; after the father died Adam was placed temporarily with family friends (the Camps).
Adam disclosed that David Smith (cohabitant) orally and anally penetrated him; a forensic interview was conducted and recorded and a written summary was initially produced to defense discovery.
Defense requested discovery; the State produced only the summary at first and supplemental CPS records shortly before trial; defense received a working copy of the full forensic‑interview video four days before trial (from co‑defendant Lisa’s counsel) and moved for a continuance.
At a May 16 hearing the trial court denied the continuance (finding no manifest injustice or prejudice), ordered youth‑court authorization for school records, and signed a severance order for co‑defendants (no formal motion to sever was filed earlier).
At trial the forensic interview video and victim testimony were admitted; Smith was convicted of sexual battery of a child <14 and sentenced to 25 years (10 suspended, 15 to serve) plus 5 years post‑release supervision.
On appeal Smith argued (1) denial of continuance for State discovery violations, (2) improper severance without a motion, and (3) cumulative error; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether denial of continuance for late disclosure of forensic‑interview video and supplemental CPS/school records was an abuse of discretion	Late disclosure was an oversight; defense had notice (summary) and no exculpatory material was withheld; witnesses remained subpoenaed	Late production hindered preparation, made video review and subpoenas for school/counselor impossible in time	Denial affirmed: no manifest injustice; defense had notice via summary, counsel reviewed video, youth‑court order remedied record access, no demonstrated prejudice
Whether severance of co‑defendants’ cases without a written/oral motion violated procedure and warrants reversal	Severance was understood and effectuated; no timely objection by defendant; no prejudice	Severance occurred without a formal State motion and was untimely; plain error review warranted	Affirmed: issue procedurally barred; plain‑error review finds no manifest miscarriage — Smith showed no actual prejudice and benefited from co‑defendant testifying
Whether cumulative errors deprived Smith of a fair trial	Individual rulings were proper; no cumulative harm	Cumulative effect of discovery issues and severance violated confrontation and right to present a defense	Denied: no reversible individual errors proved, so no cumulative error

Cox v. State, 849 So. 2d 1257 (Miss. 2003) (denial of continuance upheld where no "manifest injustice" and defendant could still call witnesses)
White v. State, 223 So. 3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (recordings in State's possession are discoverable under rule requiring production of electronic evidence)
Manyfield v. State, 296 So. 3d 240 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (trial court has wide latitude on continuances; focus is on whether defendant had reasonable opportunity to prepare)
Schlegel v. State, 303 So. 3d 30 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (discussing discovery violations and continuance analysis)
Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968 (Miss. 2007) (cumulative‑error doctrine requires that combined errors deny a fundamentally fair trial)
Hollingsworth v. State, 269 So. 3d 456 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (procedural default and plain‑error framework for unraised severance claims)
Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 733 (Miss. 2014) (plain‑error requires an obvious legal rule violation producing manifest miscarriage of justice)