Preston Overton v. State of Mississippi, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 174

Police searched Overton’s home July 12, 2012; officers found cocaine, a .38 handgun, and a document with Overton’s information; Overton signed a written statement admitting ownership.
Overton disputed the officers’ account, claiming the bedroom (and items) belonged to tenant Jeremy Page, the gun belonged to his late grandmother, and his written confession was coerced.
The defense filed a witness list the day before trial naming Christine Dunmore (girlfriend) and Eunice Cheatham (aunt); the State objected during voir dire as blindsiding.
The trial judge allowed the State to interview the witnesses and then excluded their testimony as a discovery sanction and denied a continuance.
Proffers: Dunmore would corroborate Overton’s version (officers entered uninvited, Page’s room, threats to induce confession); Cheatham would say the gun belonged to the grandmother and Page’s belongings were present.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed, holding exclusion improper absent evidence the late disclosure was willful and tactically motivated, and found prejudice requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether precluding defense witnesses for late disclosure was an appropriate discovery sanction	State: exclusion justified to prevent "trial by ambush" and unfair prejudice	Overton: no evidence the late disclosure was willful or intended to gain tactical advantage; exclusion is extreme	Reversed — exclusion improper where record lacks evidence of willful, tactical discovery violation
Whether the exclusion prejudiced the defendant	State: confession and other facts made exclusion harmless	Overton: excluded witnesses would corroborate his defense on key credibility issues	Held prejudicial — case turned on credibility; corroborative testimony likely affected outcome
Standard of review / abuse of discretion for sanction	State: trial judge’s discretionary sanction should be upheld absent clear abuse	Overton: sanction exceeded discretion because basic prerequisite (willfulness) not shown	Court: trial-court discretion limited by precedent; exclusion requires evidence of willfulness; here absence of such evidence makes exclusion erroneous

Myers v. State, 145 So.3d 1143 (Miss. 2014) (exclusion of evidence disfavored; sanction weight depends on motivation for discovery violation)
Coleman v. State, 749 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1999) (trial-court discretion to exclude witnesses for intentional discovery violations)
Houston v. State, 531 So.2d 598 (Miss. 1988) (exclusion reserved for deliberate schemes to gain tactical advantage)
Williams v. State, 54 So.3d 212 (Miss. 2011) (recent discovery alone insufficient to prove willfulness)
Morris v. State, 927 So.2d 744 (Miss. 2006) (willful late disclosure may justify exclusion)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (upholding exclusion of witnesses where omission was willful and tactically motivated)
Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1992) (prejudice found when excluded evidence supports defendant’s theory)