Kadarius White v. State of Mississippi
223 So. 3d 859
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kadarius White was indicted on nine counts (four armed robberies, four armed carjackings, possession of stolen property) arising from incidents in April 2013; jury convicted him on five counts and acquitted/mistried on others. Sentences were concurrent (four 25-year terms and one 10-year term).
- Police recovered a Hyundai Sonata and arrested White and codefendant Devontae Stamps; victims made in‑court and photo‑lineup identifications of White for some incidents.
- The State possessed recordings of approximately seven jail phone calls (about 95+ minutes) made by White from the Simpson County Jail; detectives had the CD for ~2 years. White’s discovery request sought recorded statements, but the State did not produce the recordings pretrial.
- On the morning trial began—after jury selection and just before opening statements—the prosecutor disclosed the recordings, characterized some excerpts as a "confession," and the court allowed short recesses (total a few hours) for defense review but denied a continuance or mistrial.
- The State played five excerpts to the jury; excerpts discussed hidden guns, implicated co‑defendants, and included admissions about being charged and discussions of a stolen car. The prosecution used the recordings heavily at trial and in closing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the late disclosure was a clear discovery violation and that denial of a continuance or mistrial was an abuse of discretion and not harmless. The court also rejected White’s statutory speedy‑trial claim (waived) and found the evidence sufficient to support convictions (so retrial is not barred by double jeopardy).
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery violation; denial of mistrial/continuance | State hid ~95 minutes of recorded jail calls covered by White’s discovery request for ~16 months; brief recesses were insufficient; denial of continuance or mistrial was prejudicial | Recesses gave defense adequate opportunity to review; any surprise was inadvertent/oversight and not outcome‑determinative; if surprised, State would retract tapes in event of continuance | Reversed: State committed a clear discovery violation; under URCCC 9.04 court abused discretion by denying continuance or mistrial; error not harmless; new trial ordered |
| Harmless‑error assessment of late evidence | Prejudice presumed from gross discovery violation; defendant need not prove actual prejudice | Other admissible evidence could sustain convictions, so any error was harmless | Admission of recordings was not harmless given trial‑by‑ambush and prosecution’s heavy use; reversal required |
| Statutory speedy‑trial (Miss. Code §99‑17‑1) | Trial occurred >270 days after arraignment; dismissal required | White failed to assert statutory right within 270 days and thus waived it | Waived — defendant did not timely assert statutory speedy‑trial right; claim dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (Penman & Thomas counts) | Victim descriptions (height/weight, gun descriptions) conflicted with White’s physical characteristics; identifications unreliable | Photo‑lineup and in‑court identifications plus corroborating facts sufficed | Held sufficient: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Fulks v. State, 18 So.3d 803 (Miss. 2009) (discussing trial‑by‑ambush and the need to prevent surprise discovery tactics)
- Norris v. State, 735 So.2d 363 (Miss. 1999) (Rule 9.04 purpose and that defendants need not show prejudice for gross discovery violations)
- Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983) (State is a team; police knowledge imputed to prosecutors for discovery)
- Galloway v. State, 604 So.2d 735 (Miss. 1992) (late disclosure may require reversal where prejudice is not apparent from the record)
- Reuben v. State, 517 So.2d 1383 (Miss. 1987) (ordering new trial when surprise witness disclosed shortly before trial)
- Young v. State, 981 So.2d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (harmless‑error standard: only when record shows no fair‑minded jury could arrive at any verdict but guilty)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Wilson v. State, 194 So.3d 855 (Miss. 2016) (statutory sentencing application and that sentencing statute in effect at time of offense controls)