Joshua Hurst v. State of Mississippi, 195 So. 3d 736

March 7, 2013: a shooting at a Jackson home left two dead; Joshua Hurst arrested March 9, 2013 and indicted July 12, 2013 on two murders, two aggravated assaults, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Hurst was arraigned September 24, 2013; trial originally set for April 7, 2014; continuances (not shown as motions) moved the trial to June 9 and then August 11, 2014, citing an overcrowded docket.
Hurst filed motions for discovery in October 2013 that included a general demand for a speedy trial but did not object to the April 2014 date; he moved to dismiss for speedy-trial violations on August 4, 2014 (first explicit motion to dismiss on speedy-ground).
Trial began August 12, 2014; witness LaMarcus Murray unexpectedly testified about a phone call suggesting Hurst told him he had not seen anything; defense moved for mistrial claiming a discovery violation.
Trial court granted the defense a brief opportunity to interview the witness, admonished the witness, the State agreed not to pursue the line, and the court denied a mistrial; jury convicted Hurst on all counts and imposed sentences, which the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hurst)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1) Whether Hurst's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated	Delay of ~17+ months presumptively prejudicial; dismissal required	Delay was due to crowded docket (neutral); Hurst did not timely assert right and showed no credible prejudice	Court held no constitutional speedy-trial violation after Barker balancing (length presumptive, reason neutral, late assertion by Hurst, no proven prejudice)
2) Whether Mississippi Code §99-17-1 (270-day rule) was violated	Trial occurred 321 days after arraignment; statutory discharge required	Good cause existed (overcrowded docket/continuance orders) and Hurst suffered no prejudice	Court held no statutory violation: continuance supported by crowded docket and lack of prejudice meant no discharge required
3) Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial for alleged discovery violation (URCCC 9.04)	Murray’s testimony about the phone call was undisclosed and prejudicial; mistrial required	The State did not anticipate the testimony; court gave remedy under Rule 9.04 (interview, admonition, State withdrew line of questioning) and defense declined additional relief	Court held no abuse of discretion: remedy under Rule 9.04 was adequate, no showing of prejudice from the late testimony

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (sets four-factor speedy-trial test)
DeLoach v. State, 722 So.2d 512 (Miss. 1998) (de novo review when trial court makes no Barker findings)
Franklin v. State, 136 So.3d 1021 (Miss. 2014) (8-month delay presumptively prejudicial)
Bateman v. State, 125 So.3d 616 (Miss. 2013) (allocation of weight among Barker factors)
Perry v. State, 637 So.2d 871 (Miss. 1994) (distinguishes demand for dismissal from demand for speedy trial)
Guice v. State, 952 So.2d 129 (Miss. 2007) (congested docket may establish good cause under §99-17-1)
Snelson v. State, 704 So.2d 452 (Miss. 1997) (undisclosed testimony that a defendant had committed prior murders required reversal where prosecution anticipated eliciting it)
Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968 (Miss. 2007) (reversible error for evidentiary rulings requires showing prejudice)
Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010 (Miss. 2000) (defendant must show how earlier disclosure would have aided defense)
Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980) (early case addressing §99-17-1)
Walton v. State, 678 So.2d 645 (Miss. 1996) (discusses application of §99-17-1 and prejudice requirement)