Ross v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01212-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01212-COA2002-CT-01212-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Motion to exhume - Photographs - Prior injuries - M.R.E. 404(a)(1) - Jealous nature - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Thomas, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-04-2002 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2000-0109 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John A. Ross, Jr. |
GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Murder - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Motion to exhume - Photographs - Prior injuries - M.R.E. 404(a)(1) - Jealous nature - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Ross was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Ross argues that the court erred in admitting Dr. Hayne’s testimony concerning the autopsy, bruises, trajectory of the bullet, and the cause and manner of the victim's death. According to M.R.E. 703, the expert may base his opinion on personal observation as well as facts or data made known to him at or before the hearing. A forensic pathologist may address what the cause of death was, what the manner of death was, and the path of the lethal gunshot wound. Therefore, the court did not err in allowing Dr. Hayne to testify as to the autopsy which he performed and to opine as to the cause and manner of the victim's death. Much of Ross's argument consists of contrasting the testimony of Dr. Hayne with the testimony of a forensic pathologist testifying as Ross's expert witness. However, it is the jury's duty to determine which witness' testimony is given the greater weight. Issue 2: Motion to exhume Ross argues that the court erred in denying his motion to exhume the victim's body in order for the body to be examined by an independent expert of his own choosing. After a hearing on the motion, Ross's counsel asked that the motion be held in abeyance until they were given a chance to examine the photographs and samples. Because there is nothing in the record indicating that Ross renewed his petition before or during trial, the court could not be held to be in error. Issue 3: Photographs Ross argues claims that the scene of death was tampered with and, thus, the photographs of the scene should not have been admitted into evidence. Since Ross failed to adequately prove the scene had been tampered with, the court did not err in admitting the photographs. Issue 4: Prior injuries Ross argues that the court erred in allowing testimony about prior injuries to the victim, because this was an effort to show that he had beaten her on prior occasions and, thus, was likely to have caused the bruises on the night of her death. However, having two witnesses, out of over twenty who testified at trial, briefly mention that the victim had bruises on her at various times prior to her death does not violate M.R.E. 404(a)(1). Issue 5: Jealous nature Ross argues that the court erred in allowing testimony of his jealous nature into evidence. Because Ross's counsel never objected during this line of questioning, the issue is procedurally barred. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Ross argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof. To sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. Ross claims that a reasonable hypothesis of his innocence is the possibility that the victim shot herself. However, all of Dr. Hayne's testimony was based upon a reasonable medical certainty that she could not have fired the shot that killed her. Therefore, the State met its burden of proof. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
