Barnes v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-00746-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-00746-SCT ; 2001-KA-00746-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-11-2003
Opinion Author: Bridges, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter - Suppression of statement - Change of venue - Discovery violation - UCCCR 9.04 - Sufficiency of evidence - Lesser-included offense instruction - Circumstantial evidence instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-04-2001
Appealed from: Simpson County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC.
District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen
Case Number: 99-170-K

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Harry Dale Barnes




SCOTT JOSEPH SCHWARTZ JAMES R. HAYDEN



 

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: Manslaughter - Suppression of statement - Change of venue - Discovery violation - UCCCR 9.04 - Sufficiency of evidence - Lesser-included offense instruction - Circumstantial evidence instruction

Summary of the Facts: Harry Barnes was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Suppression of statement Barnes argues that his second statement to the police violated his Miranda rights, because he was not given sufficient cooling off time from his prior refusal to talk. Once Barnes invoked his right against self-incrimination, the police could not resume interrogation unless there was an adequate cooling off period; there was a reasonable basis for inferring that Barnes had voluntarily changed his mind; and new and adequate Miranda warnings were given. Although over an hour had passed from the time Barnes had invoked his right to remain silent, the police read him his rights again, and he then signed the waiver and began to speak freely. Therefore, the court did not err in admitting the statement. Issue 2: Change of venue Barnes argues that the court should have granted his motion for change of venue. A presumption of the inability to conduct a fair trial in a given venue arises when the defendant presents together with his motion two affidavits affirming that inability. Barnes presented sufficient evidence to raise the presumption. Not only did the State present three witnesses to rebut the presumption, but the court acted scrupulously to protect Barnes's right to a fair trial. The court conducted its inquiry into the appropriateness of changing venue diligently, and on the record reserved its right to change venue sua sponte if necessary. Issue 3: Discovery violation Barnes argues that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce the holster of his gun as evidence, because it was not properly made part of discovery. Barnes did not claim unfair surprise at trial nor did he ask for a continuance. Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules requires Barnes to have sought a continuance or mistrial. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Barnes argues that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt at the close of its case in chief. One witness testified that the snub-nosed revolver did not fire the bullet that killed victim. In his videotaped confession, Barnes stated that the victim was killed by a bullet from the snub-nosed.22 caliber revolver, while the State's firearms expert stated that the bullet that killed the victim did not come from the snubnosed .22 caliber revolver. This contradiction of Barnes's statement is more than sufficient to raise a question of fact that was properly brought before the jury. Issue 5: Lesser-included offense instruction Barnes argues that the court erred in granting instructions on manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder. When there is a jury issue on the question of murder, the defendant cannot object to a manslaughter instruction. In addition, the facts allowed the inference that Barnes shot and killed the victim in the heat of passion. Issue 6: Circumstantial evidence instructions Barnes argues that the court erred in denying two defense instructions, one which instructed the jury of the State's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the other which was a circumstantial evidence instruction. A circumstantial evidence instruction is not proper when there is direct evidence of the crime presented to the jury including statements by the defendant as well as the testimony of any eyewitnesses. Because Barnes's statement presented a prima facie case for manslaughter, the court was justified in refusing his requested instruction on circumstantial evidence.


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