Thornton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01262-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-18-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Admission of tape-recorded statement - Availability of witness - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) - Sharplin instruction - Supplemental instruction - UCCCR 3.10 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: 07-20-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER: SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-2000-329 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Harvey Clifton Thornton |
JIM DAVIS |
||
| 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 - Admission of tape-recorded statement - Availability of witness - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) - Sharplin instruction - Supplemental instruction - UCCCR 3.10 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harvey Thornton was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of tape-recorded statement The court allowed the tape-recorded statement of a witness to be admitted under M.R.E. 804(b)(5) because her mental condition at the time of trial (she had been diagnosed with dementia and major depression) made her unavailable as a witness. Thornton argues that the court erred by admitting the tape, because the mental condition of the witness and her motive to fabricate make her statement untrustworthy. There is no reason to indicate or believe that the witness would harbor any prejudice or any ill will against Thornton or his victim. In addition, any error is harmless in light of the plethora of evidence which proves convincingly that Thornton’s conviction was proper. Issue 2: Sharplin instruction Thornton argues that the court erred when it reread the Sharplin instruction because doing so had a coercive effect on the jury. If a trial judge feels that there is a possibility that a jury might reach a verdict when it indicates it is hung, he may return the jury for further deliberations by simply stating to the jury to please continue its deliberations or he may give the Sharplin instruction. In this case, the jury deliberated approximately eight hours, the court gave the Sharplin instruction twice, the jury never requested to retire or recess for the evening, and the jury returned with a unanimous verdict of guilty. In these circumstances, the judge’s instruction was proper. Issue 3: Intoxication instruction Thornton argues that the court erred when it gave an additional instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense and reread the murder and manslaughter instructions. UCCCR 3.10 gives the court authority to give supplemental instructions to a jury. As a general rule, the judge should not give undue prominence to particular portions of the evidence in the instructions. Because the initial jury instruction did not make it clear to the jury as to the relevance of voluntary intoxication on the charges being considered, it was appropriate for the judge to give the additional instruction on voluntary intoxication. In addition, no harm resulted from the judge's rereading the murder and manslaughter instructions in conjunction with the additional instruction on intoxication. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
