Gonzalez v. State, 2016–KA–01271–COA
Decision Date | 28 November 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. 2016–KA–01271–COA,2016–KA–01271–COA |
Citation | 243 So.3d 244 |
Parties | Sergio Sebastian GONZALEZ a/k/a Sebastian Gonzales a/k/a Sergio S. Gonzalez a/k/a Sergio Sebastain Gonzalez, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee |
Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK M. RAND
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KATY TAYLOR GERBER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: J. TRENT KELLY
BEFORE LEE, C.J., FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. Sergio Sebastian Gonzalez was convicted of felony aggravated assault and was sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Gonzalez appeals, claiming that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to enter a medical screening form into evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error, we affirm.
¶ 2. Gonzalez and Gina Rodriguez were married in 2010. By 2014, the couple had separated and were contemplating divorce. On August 9, 2014, Gonzalez went to Gina's house in violation of a protective order. Upon entering the home, he saw Andres Gonzalez sitting on the couch in a state of undress. Gina and Andres began seeing each other while Gina was still living with Gonzalez.
¶ 3. Gonzalez testified that when he walked in, Andres stated, Gonzalez is 5'3" tall, and weighs 136 pounds, while Andres is 5'8" tall, and weighs approximately 185 pounds. Gonzalez then went to the kitchen and grabbed two kitchen knives. A struggle followed, and Andres suffered stab wounds to the right side of his head, his side, his back, and several lacerations to his arms. He also suffered a collapsed lung. As a result, Andres was airlifted to North Mississippi Medical Center. Four days after the incident, Gonzalez voluntarily turned himself in to the authorities and was charged with aggravated assault.
¶ 4. Gonzalez testified in his own defense. On cross-examination, he claimed that he attacked Andres in self-defense and had been left with bitemarks on his arms and bruises from the struggle—though he admitted they had been inflicted after he stabbed Andres. The prosecution called as rebuttal witnesses Lynn Parrish and Tyler Reed, the jailers who prepared Gonzalez's booking paperwork at the jail. Parrish, whose testimony was corroborated by Reed, testified that while booking Gonzalez into jail, she did not observe any bitemarks or bruising. The prosecution presented a medical screening form, which was unsigned, undated, and the majority of it left blank. Parrish testified that she had asked Gonzalez the questions contained in the form, but because he answered them all in the negative, and because she did not observe any cuts or bruises on him, she did not mark anything on the medical form.
DISCUSSION
¶ 5. Gonzalez contends the medical form was not produced to defense counsel during discovery, and therefore, should not have been entered into evidence at trial. When reviewing whether a discovery violation has occurred, it must first be noted that the decision to admit or exclude evidence is left to the trial court's discretion. Carpenter v. State , 132 So.3d 1053, 1055 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2013). The same standard applies to violations of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice 9.041 and to a trial court's denial of motions for continuance or mistrial. Payton v. State , 897 So.2d 921, 942 (¶ 67) (Miss. 2003) ; see also Hurst v. State , 195 So.3d 736, 744 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2016).
¶6. Rule 9.04 provides that if the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence that has not been disclosed according to the rule and the defense objects, the court shall:
¶ 7. This Court has held that when faced with a discovery violation, the trial court should follow the procedure set out in Box v. State :2
The record demonstrates that defense counsel objected to the medical form being received into evidence:
The record does not, however, reflect whether the defense had a reasonable opportunity to interview Parrish during this exchange as required by Rule 9.04 or whether defense counsel was given an opportunity to review the blank medical form before the proceedings resumed. Regardless, defense counsel did not claim unfair surprise or seek a continuance or mistrial. This Court has previously held that "it is the responsibility of defense counsel to request a continuance if unfairly surprised and, if requested, the trial court should almost certainly grant it." Wooten v. State , 811 So.2d 355, 366 (¶ 30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Because Gonzalez failed to ask for a continuance, this issue has been waived.
¶ 8. Procedural bar notwithstanding, any error of the medical form's admission would be harmless.3 Andres and Gina both testified that Gonzalez attacked Andres. Further, both jailers testified that Gonzalez arrived at jail with no injuries.
¶ 9. Gonzalez next claims that he was "ambushed" with the medical form on rebuttal. He argues that the medical form was improper rebuttal evidence and should have been presented in the State's case-in-chief.
¶ 10. The "purpose of rebuttal testimony is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence by the adverse party." Towner v. State , 837 So.2d 221, 226 (¶ 17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Williams v. State , 539 So.2d 1049, 1051 (Miss. 1989) ). The trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence is properly admitted as rebuttal evidence. Id. (citing Wakefield v. Puckett , 584 So.2d 1266, 1268 (Miss. 1991) ).
¶11. Gonzalez never objected to the medical form as improper rebuttal evidence, so he is barred from raising this issue on appeal. See Dunaway v. State , 919 So.2d 67, 74 (¶ 23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Even so, the medical form was proper rebuttal evidence. During his case-in-chief, Gonzalez testified that Andres grabbed his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. State
...that the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice were in effect at the time of Antonio's trial. Gonzales v. State , 243 So. 3d 244, 246 n.1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). In his reply, Antonio asserted the error as a violation of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice, wh......