Edwin Darrell Lett v. State of Mississippi
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01967-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-01967-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-29-2004 | |
* 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: Murder - Weight of evidence - Identification instruction - Murder instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Reasonable doubt instruction |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edwin Darrell Lett |
George S. Shaddock |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Charles W. Maris, Jr.; Jim Hood; Jean Smith Vaughan |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Identification instruction - Murder instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Reasonable doubt instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edwin Lett was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Lett argues that each of the State’s eyewitnesses had reasons to fabricate their testimony and accuse Lett of murder, and that the jury should have rejected their respective testimonies. The fact that Lett shot and killed the victim was established by testimony of five eyewitnesses. These witnesses testified that Lett engaged in a fight with the victim, shot the victim when he was unarmed, and immediately drove off after the shooting. This evidence supports the verdict. Issue 2: Identification instruction Lett argues that the court erred in giving an instruction pertaining to identification testimony of the witnesses and instructing the jury to consider whether the eyewitnesses properly identified Lett as the perpetrator of the crime, because this instruction enabled the jury to give undue weight to evidence that was not credible. The question of credibility of the witnesses was one for the jury to evaluate. In addition, the language in the instruction does not rehabilitate the eyewitnesses, direct the jury to weigh the eyewitness testimony more favorably than that of other witnesses, or attempt to manipulate the jury verdict. Issue 3: Murder instruction Lett argues that there is no evidence to submit a jury instruction for murder. A court may refuse a proffered jury instruction when there is no foundation in the evidence. However, the State produced evidence showing Lett as the person who shot and killed Lett. The State produced evidence showing depraved heart murder by establishing that Lett was engaged in a fight with an unarmed man before Lett fired the shots, in a hotel room with several people present. It was not necessary for the eyewitnesses to have actually seen Lett do the shooting. Issue 4: Manslaughter instruction Lett argues that a manslaughter instruction given by the court was confusing and was given to insure that the jury would render a guilty verdict. He also argues that the manslaughter jury instruction should not have been given because there was no evidentiary basis for convicting Lett of manslaughter. Because manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder and because the State had an evidentiary basis for submitting a jury instruction on murder, the State had an evidentiary basis for requesting jury instructions for manslaughter. Issue 5: Reasonable doubt instruction Lett argues that the judge erred in refusing to give the jury an instruction on reasonable doubt because all federal courts and most state courts do allow a defendant to give the jury an instruction on reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt instruction in effect tells jurors that they should be able to state a reason why they have a doubt. Such an instruction is erroneous because, in our jurisprudence, jurors are never required to articulate any explanation of their decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
