Conners v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-KA-00406-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-19-2012
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Admission of forensic reports - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 22(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlson, P.J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2011
Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court
Judge: Michael M. Taylor
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and was sentenced to two life sentences.
District Attorney: Dee Bates
Case Number: 10-265-PKT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: James Richard Conners, Jr. a/k/a Jim




OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: MOLLIE MARIE MCMILLIN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

    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 & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Admission of forensic reports - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 22(b)

    Summary of the Facts: James Conners Jr. was convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. The court imposed two life sentences for the murder convictions and two ten-year sentences for the possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon convictions, with all sentences to run consecutively. Conners appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Admission of forensic reports Conners argues that the admission of two forensic reports in the absence of the analysts who performed the tests violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The testimonial statements of a witness who does not testify at trial are inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The forensic reports at issue were testimonial in nature. The ballistics report provided “testimony” against Conners by showing that the shotgun shells found at the scene were consistent with having been fired from the shotgun found at the scene. The toxicology report confirmed the presence of controlled substances in Conners’s system. Both forensic tests were performed at the request of the Pike County Sheriff’s Department with the results to be used in the prosecution of Conners. The forensic reports were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statements would be available for use at a later trial. The analysts were not found to be unavailable, and Conners had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. Thus, admission of the reports violated the Confrontation Clause. However, no manifest miscarriage of justice resulted from the error, which was harmless. The ballistics report did not determine that the spent shells found at the scene definitely were fired from the shotgun found at the scene. Rather, the ballistics report simply found that the spent shells found at the scene could have been fired in that shotgun, or in another 12-gauge shotgun. This evidence was largely cumulative of other evidence before the jury. Spent shotgun shells and a shotgun were found at the scene; a reasonable inference is that the spent shotgun shells had been fired from the shotgun. Evidence also showed that the spent shotgun shells were of the same type and brand as the shells found in the shotgun case recovered from Conners’s room. Photographs of the spent shells and the shells found in the shotgun case were admitted into evidence, from which the jury reasonably could have drawn this conclusion. There is no reversible error. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Conners argues he received ineffective assistance from his two trial attorneys because they failed to object to the forensic reports; failed to object to the admission of gruesome photographs of the victims; and failed to object to evidence about his criminal history and former motorcycle-gang membership. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 22(b), issues of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object must be raised on direct appeal, or they are waived. Conners’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel all are based on counsel’s failure to make certain objections. These issues are fully apparent from the trial record. Therefore, Conners’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are properly brought on direct appeal. All of Conners’s arguments are based upon counsel’s failure to make certain objections. The failure of counsel to make certain objections may fall within the ambit of trial strategy, and therefore may not give rise to a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Even if counsel’s failure to object was deficient performance, Conners has not shown that any error was so serious that it denied Conners a fair trial. Trial counsel failed to make a Confrontation-Clause objection to the forensic reports. But Conners has not shown prejudice from the failure to object. This is because, as previously discussed, the admission of these reports into evidence was harmless error. Conners complains of counsel’s failure to object to the State’s introduction of thirty-six photographs of the victims’ bodies taken at the crime scene and at the autopsies. Conners has not shown prejudice from the failure to object. The photographs had an evidentiary purpose, because they aided the State in describing the circumstances of the killing and the location of the bodies and cause of death. They also supplemented and clarified the testimony of the investigating officers and the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsies. Conners’s trial counsel stipulated to Conners’s prior felony convictions. But trial counsel did not object to evidence that came in during his videotaped confession and the testimony of the detective about his prior criminal history and former motorcycle-gang membership. In light of the overwhelming evidence against Conners, the admission of the irrelevant information about his prior criminal history and gang membership does not undermine confidence in the outcome of his trial. Conners’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.


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