Lewis v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 01 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 286 Ark. 372,691 S.W.2d 864 |
| Parties | David Lee LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 85-41. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Gill, Johnson, Gill & Gill by Brooks A. Gill, Dumas, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Connie Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
David Lewis appeals from his conviction of aggravated robbery of a liquor store in McGehee, Arkansas and of first degree battery against the proprietor.
The case was tried to a jury. The state presented circumstantial evidence to prove Lewis committed the crimes. Lewis presented evidence he was not in McGehee at the time of the robbery.
As his first point of error, Lewis argues the trial court committed reversible error by permitting a witness to testify on behalf of the state when the witness' name was not provided to the defense until the morning of the trial. Some three months before trial defense counsel filed a motion requesting the names and addresses of all witnesses the state intended to call. The prosecuting attorney responded to the motion in a timely manner, but failed to list Ms. Hattie Johnson as a witness. On the morning of trial the prosecuting attorney informed defense counsel the state would call Ms. Johnson. The prosecution told the court it had not known about her until that morning, and stated that Ms. Johnson had seen Lewis on the day of the robbery and would help prove the chain of circumstantial proof against the defendant.
The defense objected, moved for exclusion of the witness and for a continuance, citing its motion for discovery and the fact counsel for the defendant had called the prosecutor's office in the afternoon only the day before and asked if there would be any other witnesses. The court denied the motions, but said the defense would be permitted to interview the witness first. Following the opening statements another motion for exclusion of the witness was made, based on surprise and impossibility for the accused to adequately prepare for the trial.
During her voir dire, the witness stated that on the day of the robbery she was interviewed by the police and had told them everything she knew. The defense renewed its motion, contending the state knew about the witness from the day of the robbery, and had offered no explanation for its failure to supply her name. This motion was made after the defense had interviewed the witness, and was again denied. Lewis argues in his brief the defense had only five minutes to interview this witness. The record supports the claim and the state does not dispute it.
Under A.R.Cr.P. Rule 17.1(a)(i), upon timely request from the defendant, the prosecution is required to give the names and addresses of witnesses it intends to call and Rule 19.2 imposes a continuing duty to disclose this information. Under Rule 19.7, if there has been a failure to comply, the court may order the undisclosed evidence excluded, grant a continuance or enter such other order as it deems proper under the circumstances. It is well established that information held by the police is imputed to the prosecution's office. A.R.Cr.P. 17.1; Williams v. State, 267 Ark. 527, 593 S.W.2d 8 (1979); Dupree v. State, 271 Ark. 50, 607 S.W.2d 356 (1980); Lacy v. State, 272 Ark. 333, 614 S.W.2d 235 (1981).
In Williams, supra, the defense had filed a timely discovery motion under 17.1. The prosecution learned the night before the trial of a material witness, but did not notify the defense until the lunch break the next day, after the voir dire of the jurors. The defense moved to exclude the evidence but the motion was overruled. Citing rule 17.1 we found the court must act in such a situation and the evidence must be excluded or a continuance granted. In Hughes v. State, 264 Ark. 723, 574 S.W.2d 888 (1978) the prosecution wanted to call a witness the defense had not been informed of. The court granted a continuance by way of a recess for the defense to interview the witness. There is no mention of how long the recess was. We found that if there was any failure to comply with rule 17, it was cured by the recess allowed for interviewing the witness but additionally noted that after the interview the defense made no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nooner v. State
...of witnesses it intends to call at trial, and Rule 19.2 imposes a continuing duty to disclose this information. Lewis v. State, 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). The trial court has four options under Rule 19.7 to remedy a violation of the rules: permit discovery, exclude the undisclosed......
-
State v Larimore
...aware of the exculpatory evidence, we have stated that information held by the police is imputed to the prosecution. Lewis v. State, 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). We conclude that the evidence was willfully suppressed by the Finally, to establish a valid Brady claim it must be shown ......
-
Scott v. State
...and not to the prosecutor. Id. ; see Buckley v. State , 2010 Ark. 154, at 6, 2010 WL 1255763 (per curiam); Lewis v. State , 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). Thus, in order to comply with the standard set forth in Brady , a prosecutor has a duty to discover any favorable evidence that is......
-
Esmeyer v. State
...affirmed for two reasons. It is true that information held by police officers is imputed to the prosecuting attorney. Lewis v. State, 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). But a failure to disclose that information will not warrant a reversal of a conviction absent a showing of prejudice. Al......