Christopher Jerome Davis v. State of Mississippi
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00988-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00988-SCT2003-KA-00988-COA2003-KA-00988-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 11-17-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Amendment of indictment - Adequacy of indictment - Sentencing hearing - Limitation of jury instructions - Constitutionality of capital murder statute - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Sequestration of jury |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Jerome Davis |
Tristan Russell Armer; Joe Carl Jordan |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Deirdre McCrory; Scott Stuart; Charles W. Maris, Jr.; Jim Hood |
|
|
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 - Amendment of indictment - Adequacy of indictment - Sentencing hearing - Limitation of jury instructions - Constitutionality of capital murder statute - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Sequestration of jury |
| Summary of the Facts: | Christopher Davis was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Davis argues that the court constructively amended the indictment by instructing the jury to find him guilty if it found that he acted in an eminently dangerous manner to others and evinced a depraved heart, regardless of human life and without any premeditated design to effect the death of the victim, because the original indictment charged him with deliberate design murder. Depraved heart murder subsumes deliberate design/premeditated murder. Therefore, the depraved heart murder instruction did not constructively amend the indictment. Issue 2: Adequacy of indictment Davis argues that the indictment fails to specifically inform him of the subsection under which the State planned to proceed with the charge against him. The indictment properly followed the requirements of the URCCC 7.06. Further, section 99-17-20 requires that the relevant code section be cited to place the defendant on notice as to what makes the offense a capital one. The indictment in this case properly cites to the code section, thus putting Davis on notice that he was being charged with a capital offense. Issue 3: Sentencing hearing Davis argues that he should have received a sentencing hearing. Because Davis did not request a sentencing hearing prior to the imposition of his sentence, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 4: Limitation of jury instructions Davis argues that the court erred by failing to limit its instructions to the jury to require a finding of deliberate design, malice aforethought, or premeditation. The resolution of issue one leads to the conclusion that this issue is without merit. Issue 5: Constitutionality of capital murder statute Davis argues that the current Mississippi capital murder statute is unconstitutional. The supreme court has held that the fact that Mississippi's capital murder scheme makes the death penalty a possible punishment for felony murder where there is no requirement to prove an intent to kill, and not premeditated murder, does not make the Mississippi capital murder statute unconstitutional. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Davis argues that the evidence did not establish capital murder, because the State failed to prove intent to kill a specific person and there was no evidence showing that he saw the victim at the scene. The State presented the testimony of a witness who indicated that he saw what transpired. The credibility of the witnesses’ testimony and its weight is for the jury to resolve. The jury resolved those issues in favor of conviction. Issue 7: Closing argument Davis argues that comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments violated his right against self-incrimination and the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Where a prosecutor has made an improper argument, the question on appeal is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument of the prosecuting attorney is to create an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Given the evidence presented, the verdict was not occasioned by unjust prejudice. Issue 8: Circumstantial evidence instruction Davis argues that the court erred by failing to grant his instruction on circumstantial evidence. A circumstantial evidence instruction should be given only when the prosecution can produce neither eyewitnesses or a confession to the offense charged. Here, the State presented the eyewitness testimony of an officer who was present at the scene. Issue 9: Sequestration of jury Davis argues that the court erred by failing to sequester the jury during the trial. The jury was instructed not to deliberate on the matter or discuss the trial. Jurors are presumed to have followed the instruction of the court where nothing in the record suggests otherwise. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
