High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12/17/96OF THESTATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 94-KA-01063 COAGLADYS SCOTT AND JAMIE SCOTTAPPELLANTSv.STATE OF MISSISSIPPIAPPELLEE
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ANDMAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-BTRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDONCOURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:FIRNIST J. ALEXANDER JR.GAIL SHAW-PIERSONATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY KLINGFUSSDISTRICT ATTORNEY: KEN TURNERNATURE OF THE CASE: ARMED ROBBERYTRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GLADYS SCOTT & JAMIE SCOTT- -EACH: ARMEDROBBERY 2 COUNTS -- COUNT I SENTENCED TO SERVE LIFE IMPRISONMENT INMDOC; COUNT II SENTENCED TO SERVE LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN MDOC &CONSECUTIVE TO COUNT I
MANDATE ISSUED: 6/5/97BEFORE THOMAS, P.J., DIAZ, AND KING, JJ.THOMAS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:SUMMARYGladys Scott and Jamie Scott were each convicted of two counts of armed robbery. Feelingaggrieved, both appeal, assigning the following issues as error:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THEIR MOTION FORCONTINUANCE;II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THEIR MOTION FORMISTRIAL RESULTING FROM THE STATE’S USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS;III. WHETHER THE STATE IMPROPERLY COMMENTED ON THE DEFENDANTS’FAILURE TO TESTIFY; ANDIV. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION IMPROPERLY USED ITS PEREMPTORYSTRIKES IN VIOLATION OF
BATSON.
Finding no error, we affirm.FACTSOn the night of December 24, 1993, Johnny Ray Hayes and Mitchell Duckworth left work atMcCarty Farms around 10:30 P.M. Hayes drove them to the Mini Mart on Highway 35 where theybought beer and gasoline. While stopped at the Mini Mart, Hayes and Duckworth saw Jamie andGladys Scott, sisters, pull into the Mini Mart parking lot in a blue Oldsmobile. Hayes and Duckworthwere unable to see who else might have been in the Oldsmobile. Gladys approached Hayes and toldhim that she and Jamie wanted to go for a ride.The four drove toward Hillsboro after stopping at the Oakdale Apartments. As they reachedHillsboro, Duckworth told Hayes that the same blue Oldsmobile they had seen at the Mini Mart was
following them. The four stopped at The Cow Pasture, a club in Hillsboro, in order to allow Gladysand Jamie to go to the restroom.Upon returning to Hayes’ car, Gladys asked if she could drive, and Hayes allowed her to drive hiscar. Gladys stopped at a house across the street from The Cow Pasture. She and Jamie got out of thecar and spoke to the individuals in the blue Oldsmobile, which was parked on the side of the road.Hayes and Duckworth remained in Hayes’ car. When the women returned, Gladys continued todrive. Soon thereafter, Jamie began to complain that she felt sick to her stomach and needed to throwup. Hayes asked Gladys to stop the car so that Jamie would not throw up in his car. Gladys pulled off the side of the road, and the blue Oldsmobile pulled up behind Hayes’ car. As soon as the women gotout of Hayes’ car, a man shoved a shotgun through the passenger side window and ordered both mento get out of the car and lay down on the ground. The assailants hit both men in the head with theshotgun and took their wallets. At one point during the robbery, Jamie held the shotgun. After therobbery, Jamie and Gladys left with the other assailants in the blue Oldsmobile. They returned toJamie’s apartment where all five of the assailants split the money they had stolen.Both victims testified at trial and positively identified Gladys and Jamie. As required by their pleabargains, two of the three males involved in the robbery, both of whom were teenagers, testified attrial that Jamie and Gladys were involved in the robbery and, in fact, planned the robbery.ISSUESI. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING THE SCOTTS’MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AFTER THE STATE FAILEDTO RESPOND TO A RULE 4.06 DISCOVERY REQUEST?Under Uniform Criminal Rule of Circuit Court Practice 4.06 which was in effect at the time of trial,upon written request, a defendant is entitled to the following information: "(1) the names andaddresses of all witnesses in chief proposed to be offered by the prosecution at trial, together with acopy of the contents of any statement . . . [and] (3) [a] copy of the criminal record of the defendant,if proposed to be used to impeach. . . ." Unif. Crim. R. Cir. C. Prac. 4.06. The rule further providedthat "upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court may require suchother discovery to defense counsel as justice may require."
Id.
The Scotts each filed a Rule 4.06 discovery request seeking copies of the criminal records of allwitnesses. The State did not produce such records. The Scotts failed to seek a hearing or a ruling tocompel discovery of this information. One of the victims, Mitchell Duckworth, had been convicted inSimpson County once for grand larceny, three times for driving with a suspended license, and threetimes for DUI. The prosecutor stated to the court that he was aware of only one of Duckworth’sconvictions, one of the DUIs. Another one of the State’s witnesses, Christopher Patrick, who wasone of the participants in the robbery, also had a criminal record, and the trial court excluded histestimony.Immediately prior to trial, the Defendants moved for dismissal or, alternatively, for a continuance
Add a Comment
deleted_fbuser_1286220533left a comment