Myers v. State, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 327

Myers was arrested Oct. 28, 2004 for an alleged $5 armed robbery; victim Gabriel Lewis identified Myers at the scene and police recovered a .22 pistol and $5 on Myers. Myers gave a post-arrest statement admitting taking $4–$5, but at trial testified to a different account (that he and Lewis were acquaintances and had been using drugs together).
Myers’s case proceeded through multiple trial dates: indictment Jan. 4, 2005; first trial June 24, 2008 (mistrial); second trial Aug. 7, 2008 (mistrial); third trial Sept. 16, 2008 resulted in conviction and a 39-year sentence (with some years suspended).
On the day before the third trial, defense counsel first disclosed a newly-located witness, Jacques Branch, who would have testified that Myers and Lewis knew each other—rebutting Lewis’s claim that he did not know Myers.
The trial court excluded Branch’s testimony as untimely (invoking discovery rules and prior mistrials), the State had opportunity to interview Branch and did not seek a continuance, and the court did not explicitly label the nondisclosure as willful.
On appeal Myers argued (1) improper exclusion of defense witness, (2) violation of his speedy-trial rights (constitutional and statutory), and (3) weight of the evidence; the Court reversed and remanded on the first two grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Myers)	Held
Whether trial court properly excluded Jacques Branch	Exclusion proper because defense violated discovery rules by failing to timely disclose witness	Branch was recently located; disclosure occurred before trial and was not willful; exclusion prejudiced defense	Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion because no evidence of willful discovery violation and exclusion was prejudicial
Whether exclusion prejudiced defendant's trial	Exclusion was a permissible sanction for untimely disclosure	Exclusion undermined core defense—Branch would corroborate defendant and contradict victim	Reversed: exclusion was prejudicial given close credibility contest; Branch critical to defense
Whether Myers’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was waived or procedurally barred	No ruling below; claim not preserved for appeal	Delay (from arrest to first trial) was long and Myers had asserted the right; claim may be preserved despite lack of trial-court ruling	Not decided on the merits: Court remanded for trial-court hearing on Barker factors rather than decide the claim on appeal
Whether statutory speedy-trial mandate (270 days) was violated	State bears burden to show good cause; remand needed to develop record	Myers contended multiple unexplained delays exceeded 270 days	Remanded: trial court to hold hearing and determine whether statutory/constitutional speedy-trial violation occurred; if found, dismissal required

Williams v. State, 54 So.3d 212 (Miss. 2011) (untimely but disclosed witness testimony not automatically willful; exclusion depends on diligence and prejudice)
Morris v. State, 927 So.2d 744 (Miss. 2006) (trial court may exclude evidence for willful discovery violations)
Darby v. State, 538 So.2d 1168 (Miss. 1989) (exclusion warranted where violation is willful and tactically motivated)
Houston v. State, 531 So.2d 598 (Miss. 1988) (exclusion a ‘‘radical sanction’’ reserved for deliberate schemes to gain tactical advantage)
Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1992) (reversal required only if exclusion prejudiced defendant)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)