198 So. 3d 388
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 6, 2013, Fernando Noriega was shot in a Walmart parking lot in Laurel, MS; he testified (through an interpreter) that the shooter demanded money.
- Sedrick Miles and Sean Land were in the same vehicle; Miles testified Land said he was "going to get out of the car and do something," then Miles heard shots and saw Noriega fall.
- Police recovered the vehicle’s license plate from Walmart surveillance; Miles was arrested and implicated Land as the shooter.
- Land gave a recorded interview confessing to the shooting; the recording and the Walmart surveillance video were played for the jury.
- A Laurel Police lieutenant narrated the surveillance video at trial; the State later produced and admitted Miles’s shoes (not previously disclosed) without a continuance or mistrial request.
- Jury convicted Land of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a felon; court sentenced consecutive terms totaling 42 years. On appeal Land raised two evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Land's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay witness narration of surveillance video was improper under Rule 701 | Lieutenant Jackson impermissibly offered opinion/narration beyond firsthand knowledge and injected interpretation into the video | Narration largely described what occurred and did not identify Land; objections were limited and much of the narration was permissible description | Court: Admission was error as to opinion beyond firsthand knowledge, but any error was harmless given confession, Miles’s testimony, and Noriega’s testimony |
| Whether admission of Miles’s shoes (not disclosed in discovery) violated URCCC 9.04 and warranted exclusion | Admission violated discovery rule and prejudiced defense because shoes were not produced timely | Prosecutor said shoes first seen morning of trial; defense declined opportunity to examine and did not request a continuance or mistrial as Rule 9.04 requires | Court: Defense waived the Rule 9.04 protections by failing to request a continuance or mistrial; admission affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gales v. State, 153 So. 3d 632 (Miss. 2014) (distinguishes permissible video narration from impermissible lay interpretation)
- Wells v. State, 604 So. 2d 271 (Miss. 1992) (narration by witness lacking firsthand knowledge is error that can be harmless when isolated)
- Ratliff v. State, 879 So. 2d 1062 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (isolates impermissible narration and treats error as harmless given totality of evidence)
- Williams v. State, 991 So. 2d 593 (Miss. 2008) (explains URCCC 9.04 requires defense to claim unfair surprise and request continuance or mistrial to preserve challenge on appeal)