Lancaster v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00050-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00050-SCT ; 2002-KA-00050-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-13-2004
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder - Sufficiency of indictment - Jury instructions - Parental instruction - Excessive sentence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-08-2001
Appealed from: Simpson County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: CONVICTION OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE
District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen
Case Number: 2001-7-K

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Christopher Lancaster, Sr. a/k/a Chris Lancaster




CYNTHIA ANN STEWART



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

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: Capital murder - Sufficiency of indictment - Jury instructions - Parental instruction - Excessive sentence

Summary of the Facts: Christopher Lancaster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of indictment Lancaster argues that the indictment fails to make clear whether the predicate offense, burglary, involves larceny or an assault. The indictment plainly states that Lancaster was charged with killing the victim while in the commission of the crime of burglary. Moreover, the language of “intent to commit an assault therein” specifically satisfies the “intent to commit a crime” element of burglary. Lancaster also argues that the indictment fails to set out the elements of burglary. Whether an indictment in the language of the statute is sufficient, or whether other words or acts are necessary to properly charge the commission of a crime is dependent upon the nature of the offense and the terms in which it is described by the statute. Here, the language of the indictment explicitly mirrors the burglary statute. Lancaster was sufficiently informed of the underlying felony and the essential facts constituting the offense of capital murder. Issue 2: Jury instructions Lancaster argues that the court improperly granted jury instructions which allowed the State to try him on both capital murder, simple murder, and manslaughter and denied him the ability to defend himself. These instructions only concerned simple murder and the obligation of the jury, if the evidence so supported, to find Lancaster guilty of simple murder. The granting of the instructions did not obstruct Lancaster’s ability to prepare his defense. Issue 3: Parental instruction Lancaster argues that the court erred when it failed to grant an instruction to the jury that both he and his wife were the parents of their son and that neither had the right to keep him from the other. Lancaster fails to provide any legal support for his argument of the necessity for the instruction. In addition, he fails to explain how the denial of this instruction denied him the right to present his defense. Issue 4: Excessive sentence Lancaster argues that the charge of capital murder violates the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against excessive punishment. Lancaster raises this issue for the first time in his appeal. An issue not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court