Morris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00497-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00497-SCT ; 2003-KA-00497-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-18-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Rape & Murder - DNA evidence - Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: COUNT I - RAPE AND SENTENCE OF A TERM OF TWENTY FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AND COUNT II - MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC WHICH IS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH COUNT I. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-2001-162 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles William Morris |
TOM SUMRALL |
||
| 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: | Rape & Murder - DNA evidence - |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Morris was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years for rape and a life sentence for murder to run consecutively with the rape sentence. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morris argues that the court erred by allowing the lab director to testify as to the results of DNA tests that he personally did not conduct. In a prior case, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by admitting testimony from an assistant lab director because the lab director supervised the work of the technician who performed the tests. Here, the court properly admitted the testimony since the lab director testified that he trained the technician who performed the DNA testing, examined her proficiency, checked the protocols and checked and signed all DNA test results. Morris also argues that the court denied him due process of the law by admitting the results of the DNA tests performed by Reliagene Laboratory because at the time the first tests were conducted Reliagene was not certified to perform DNA testing. The record indicates that the judge was aware of the guidelines on the admissibility of DNA evidence outlined in Polk v. State, 612 So. 2d 381 (Miss. 1992). In fact, his reasoning follows the Polk guidelines. Not only did the court apply the correct law in this case, but Morris did not demonstrate a denial of a fundamental right. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
