Marcel Smith a/k/a Marcel Smith, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 373 So.3d 586

Victim Carl Newton was found shot to death on July 17, 2018; Marcel Smith was tried with co-defendants and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder. Sentences: 20 years (conspiracy) and life (murder), concurrent; convictions affirmed on appeal.
Investigators obtained AT&T cell‑phone records showing latitude/longitude coordinates for Smith’s and Newton’s phones for the night of the killing.
Officer Ruston Cavin converted those coordinates into a Google Earth map and planned to testify about the plotted phone locations.
On the first morning of trial the State filed a supplemental notice identifying Cavin as an expert and provided the map; Smith objected as untimely (discovery violation), sought a continuance, and argued Cavin should be excluded or limited.
The court denied a continuance, barred expert/opinion testimony from Cavin, but allowed him to give limited lay testimony about plotting coordinates into Google Earth and to introduce the map; Smith did not renew objections after overnight recess.
On appeal Smith argued (1) the court abused its discretion by refusing a continuance for the late expert notice, and (2) Cavin should have been required to testify as an expert (Collins issue). The court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying a continuance after a supplemental expert notice was filed the morning of trial	Late notice was a discovery violation and amounted to "trial by ambush;" Smith needed time to authenticate records and prepare for Cavin's expert testimony	Phone records had been produced months earlier; the supplemental notice and map were provided as discovered; court gave reasonable time (overnight) and limited testimony	No abuse of discretion; court followed MRCrP 17.9(Box framework), gave reasonable opportunity, and Smith did not renew objections or request more time
Whether Cavin should have been required to testify as an expert about cell‑phone location technology	Testimony about phone‑location plotting and any interpretive opinions require expertize under Collins; lay testimony was improper	Cavin merely entered coordinates from AT&T records into Google Earth and showed plotted points; procedure was not technical or requiring specialized training (Manning)	Admission as lay testimony was not error: testimony limited to plotting coordinates, not opining on owners’ locations; court did not abuse discretion

Box v. State, 437 So. 2d 19 (Miss. 1983) (framework for remedying discovery violations)
Tugle v. State, 68 So. 3d 691 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (non‑disclosed evidence may be admitted if defense given reasonable opportunity to accommodate)
Collins v. State, 172 So. 3d 724 (Miss. 2015) (Supreme Court cautioned about non‑expert testimony that purports to pinpoint a phone user’s location)
Manning v. State, 269 So. 3d 216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (permitting lay testimony where witness merely entered provider coordinates into mapping software)
Baldwin v. State, 757 So. 2d 227 (Miss. 2000) (continuance denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Smith v. State, 326 So. 3d 510 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and expert testimony)