Markeith D. Fleming v. State of Mississippi, 179 So. 3d 1115

Victims were shot; Christopher Graham died and Derrick Hannah identified Markeith Fleming as the shooter. Fleming had told police he was at his girlfriend’s house in Winona at the time.
The State produced Fleming’s AT&T cell-phone records in discovery months before trial and later disclosed it intended to call an AT&T employee to authenticate/explain them.
Five days before trial the State provided the AT&T employee’s CV and a supplemental discovery identifying Thomas Gandy, an AT&T engineer, who would testify about cell towers and locations; Fleming moved for a continuance to obtain his own expert.
The trial court denied the continuance, reasoning the records were produced months earlier and Gandy would only explain the records; defense did not object to Gandy’s testimony at trial.
Gandy, not tendered as an expert, testified about how cell sites and sectorized antennas permitted him to identify the general location of Fleming’s phone at various times — testimony that went beyond merely reading the records.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; after this Court reversed its prior Collins decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed Fleming’s convictions, holding the testimony required expert qualification and the late disclosure amounted to an ambush requiring a continuance and a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the late disclosure and denial of a continuance prejudiced Fleming because the State presented expert testimony through an AT&T engineer without timely notice	Fleming: Gandy’s testimony went beyond lay interpretation of records and required expert testimony; late disclosure prevented him from retaining a rebuttal expert	State: Records were produced months earlier; Gandy merely explained documents and was not offering expert opinion	Court: Held Gandy’s testimony constituted expert testimony under Rule 702; late disclosure was an ambush and the continuance should have been granted — reverse and remand for new trial
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to Gandy’s expert-style testimony	Fleming: Counsel’s failure to object was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial	State: No objection was made; trial court and COA treated testimony as non-expert lay explanation	Court: Did not reach ineffective-assistance claim because reversal on continuance/expert issue warranted new trial

Collins v. State, 172 So. 3d 724 (Miss. 2015) (testimony that pinpoints a phone user’s location based on historical cellular data requires expert qualification under Rule 702)
Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 904 So. 2d 1077 (Miss. 2005) (party may not evade Rule 702 by presenting testimony that requires specialized knowledge as lay testimony)