Rule 17.9 - Failure to Disclose; Sanctions(a) Failure to Make Disclosure - Pre-Trial. If, at any time prior to trial, it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery of material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.(b) Failure to Make Disclosure - Trial. If, during the course of trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed to the defense as required by these Rules and the defense objects to the introduction for that reason, the court shall: (1) Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness and/or examine the newly produced documents, photographs or other evidence.(2) If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence, grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence, or grant a mistrial.(3) The court shall not be required to grant either a continuance or mistrial for such a discovery violation if the prosecution withdraws its efforts to introduce such evidence. The court shall follow the same procedure for violation of discovery by the defense.
(c) Sanctions. Willful violation by an attorney of an applicable discovery rule, or an order issued pursuant thereto, may subject the attorney to appropriate sanctions by the court.Comment
Rule 17.9 is modeled after former Rule 9.04 (I.) of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court. That rule addressed "the procedure trial courts should follow when confronted with a discovery violation" in the manner set forth in Box v. State, 437 So. 2d 19, 22-26 (Miss. 1983) (Robertson, J., specially concurring). Galloway v. State, 122 So. 3d 614, 633 n.3 (Miss. 2013). See also Fulks v. State, 18 So. 3d 803 (Miss. 2009).