Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (2026)
Requests for discovery
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) A party may invoke the processes of discovery available under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure or elsewhere in the usages and principles of law if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.
- (2) Requests for discovery shall be accomplished by a statement of the interrogatories or requests for admission and a list of the documents, if any, sought to be produced.
Laws, 1984, ch. 378, § 8, eff. 4/17/1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Rochell v. State, 748 So. 2d 103 (Miss. 1999).
Rochell v. State, 748 So. 2d 103 (Miss. 1999). “Whether the trial judge prejudiced the Appellant's case by not entertaining a Writ of Habeas Corpus which forced the Appellant to conduct the hearing without discovery as requested per Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15 and § 99-39-23(2)? STATEMENT OF THE FACTS PLEA HEARING: ¶ 4.”
Sanders v. State, 846 So. 2d 230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Rev.2000). ¶ 9.”
Neal v. State, 525 So. 2d 1279 (Miss. 1988). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (2) (Supp. 1986).”
Grayson v. State, 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Rev.2007). In death-penalty cases, Rule 22(c)(4)(h) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure states: Upon appointment of counsel, or the determination that the petitioner is represented by private counsel the petitioner’s prior trial and…”
Brown v. State, 88 So. 3d 726 (Miss. 2012). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Rev.2007) (emphasis added); see also Roland v.”
Roland v. State, 666 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 1995). “Discovery Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (1) provides: "A party may invoke the processes of discovery available under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure or elsewhere in the usages and principles of law if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and…”
Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505 (Miss. 1989). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Supp. 1989). III.”
Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 304 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15(1) (Supp.2009).”
Sandifer v. State, 799 So. 2d 914 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Rev. 2000). We find no basis for the trial court to have exercised his discretion to order discovery.”
Milam v. State, 578 So. 2d 272 (Miss. 1991). “, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Supp. 1990) (authorizing discovery pursuant to Miss.”
Daniel Paul Copple v. State of Mississippi, 196 So. 3d 189 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15(a) (Rev.2015). Considering the nature of Copple’s claim, the relief he sought, and his stated intent to file a PCR motion, his complaint for discovery was subsumed by the UPCCRA.”
Holt v. State, 650 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 1994). “) *1276 Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Supp. 1993) authorizes full discovery under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15(1) — 2 cases
Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 304 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15(1) (Supp.2009).”
Corrothers v. State, 189 So. 3d 612 (Miss. 2015).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15(3) — 1 case
Sanders v. State, 846 So. 2d 230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15 (Rev.2000). ¶ 9.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-15(a) — 1 case
Daniel Paul Copple v. State of Mississippi, 196 So. 3d 189 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-15(a) (Rev.2015). Considering the nature of Copple’s claim, the relief he sought, and his stated intent to file a PCR motion, his complaint for discovery was subsumed by the UPCCRA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.