93 So. 3d 43
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Patterson was convicted of sale of hydrocodone in Choctaw County Circuit Court and sentenced to 15 years with 7 suspended, 8 to serve, and 5 years probation.
- A confidential informant (Cl) and agent Woodruff conducted the drug purchase on September 24, 2009; the Cl testified at trial.
- Patterson moved for discovery; State disclosed Cl’s name prior to February 11, 2010, and provided contact information days before trial.
- One day before trial, a motion hearing addressed Patterson’s request for a continuance due to the late identification of the Cl.
- The circuit court reserved ruling on continuance, allowed Patterson to interview Sanders (the Cl’s identity) at 11 a.m., and later denied the continuance.
- Trial proceeded with three witnesses; Patterson cross-examined the Cl and Sanders; no manifest injustice found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance | Patterson argues discovery delay prejudiced defense. | Patterson contends late Cl disclosure required continuance. | No abuse; no manifest injustice; no Box violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983) (pretrial discovery obligations and continuance remedy)
- Densmore v. State, 27 So.3d 379 (Miss. 2009) (timeliness of disclosure and fair trial rights)
- Fulks v. State, 18 So.3d 803 (Miss. 2009) (timeliness of discovery disclosures)
- Foster v. State, 484 So.2d 1009 (Miss. 1986) (case-by-case continuance analysis)
- Reuben v. State, 517 So.2d 1383 (Miss. 1987) (reasonable opportunity to confront state’s evidence)
- Sanders v. State, 38 So.3d 639 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (continuance in context of reasonable opportunity to cross-examine)