Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00656-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-00656-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-31-2003 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved heart murder - Murder instruction - Defense of others instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Initial aggressor - M.R.E. 803(3) - Cautionary instruction - Prior inconsistent statements - Admission of confessions - Victim’s scars Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Pittman, C.J. Dissent Joined By : McRae, P.J., and Graves, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Joined in Part by Pittman, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2001 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: John Kitchens Disposition: Appellant was found guilty of depraved-heart murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. District Attorney: Rick Mitchell Case Number: 2000-208 |
|
| Consolidated: 2001-KA-00507-SCT Billy Ray Harris v. State of Mississippi; Madison Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2000-144; Ruling Date: 02/23/2001; Ruling Judge: John Kitchens; 2001-KA-00665-SCT Charlie Harris v. State of Mississippi; Madison Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2000-208; Ruling Date: 02/23/2001; Ruling Judge: John Kitchens | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Billy Ray Harris |
DAN W. DUGGAN, JR.
CYNTHIA HEWES SPEETJENS
MICHAEL V. WARD |
||
| 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: | Depraved heart murder - Murder instruction - Defense of others instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Initial aggressor - M.R.E. 803(3) - Cautionary instruction - Prior inconsistent statements - Admission of confessions - Victim’s scars |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Billy, Jason, and Charlie Harris were tried together for murder. The jury returned a guilty verdict against each for depraved-heart murder, and they were each sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Depraved-heart murder instruction The appellants argue that the State's depraved-heart murder instruction for each defendant lacks two important phrases: (1) "without authority of law" and (2) "not in necessary self-defense." With regard to the missing “without authority of law” language, the term “unlawfully” is synonymous for the phrase “without authority of law.” The instruction at issue directs the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted "unlawfully." With regard to the missing language “not in necessary self-defense,”the instructions in this case refer to self-defense as a defense and also discuss what has to be proven to find an assault justifiable on the grounds of self-defense. The appellants’ argument fails because the instructions, when read in their entirety, properly charged the jury on the issues of law the Harrises claim were omitted. It was not error to give an instruction that omits the words “not in necessary self defense” when charging depraved heart murder when the court also instructs the jury in a separate instruction that the killing would be justified if committed by the defendant in the lawful defense of his own person. Issue 2: Defense of others instruction The appellants argue that the court erred in refusing to give two instructions which would have told the jury it could acquit if it found the defendants were acting in defense of others. Either taking the evidence as a whole or only the evidence in favor of the Harrises, there is no proof that the victim was a danger to anyone other than the Harrises. In addition, the court adequately covered the issue of self-defense with the jury, and it was not error to refuse other redundant instructions which are not supported by the facts. Issue 3: Manslaughter instruction The appellants argues that three depraved-heart murder instructions and three manslaughter instructions gave the jury no basis for distinguishing between depraved-heart murder and manslaughter because they did not define the degree of negligence associated with each. A court is not required to instruct the jury sua sponte or give instructions in addition to those tendered by the parties. Neither the prosecution nor the defendants offered an instruction which would have instructed the jury on the difference between depraved-heart murder and heat of passion manslaughter. The court cannot now be found in error because the tendered and given instructions do not differentiate between the two. In addition, the instructions given here contain different elements which sufficiently differentiate "heat of passion" from acts evincing a "depraved heart" and no further instruction was necessary. Issue 4: Initial aggressor The appellants argue that the court erred when it prohibited a witness from testifying that the victim was cursing and making comments about getting it on just before the fight with Bill Harris began, because the statement is relevant as evidence establishing the victim as the initial aggressor in the fight. M.R.E. 803(3), which provides a hearsay exception for a statement of a then existing mental condition, or state of mind, encompasses relevant statements made by murder victims before their death. Because the statement at issue is relevant to show that the victim intended to fight and might have been the initial aggressor, the court erred in excluding it. However, this is nothing more than harmless error since the jury had sufficient evidence of the victim's conduct before the fight began. Issue 5: Cautionary instruction The appellants argue that the court erred by refusing a cautionary instruction to the jury that Charlie Harris was not on trial for his previous D.U.I. conviction. When the defendant objects to admission of character evidence, the court must balance its probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. The defendant is required to make a contemporaneous objection. Here, the prior bad acts evidence was introduced by the defendant himself and therefore, any objection Charlie may have had concerning its admission into evidence has been waived. In addition, he failed to make a contemporaneous objection or request a cautionary instruction. Issue 6: Prior inconsistent statements The appellants argue that it was error for the court to refuse to give an instruction which would have instructed the jury that testimony by a witness may be discredited or impeached with prior inconsistent statements. The court's general instruction that the jury determine the weight and credibility of a witness's testimony, coupled with cross-examination of the witness concerning the inconsistent statement and closing arguments drawing attention to the inconsistencies is sufficient to remove error from the refusal to give an impeachment instruction. In light of the court's given instruction concerning the weight and credibility of the witness's testimony in this case, it was not error for the court to refuse to give the impeachment instruction based upon the witness's retraction of a part of her statement to the investigator. Issue 7: Admission of confessions The appellants argue that it was error to admit the confessions of the three brothers at trial because it violated their right to confront their accusers. Where a codefendant's statement is introduced at a joint trial which powerfully implicates the defendant in a crime, a jury instruction or redactions which naturally suggest the defendant's name has been removed is not sufficient protection of the defendant's right to confront his accuser where the codefendant does not take the stand and subject himself to cross-examination by the defendant. Where the codefendant's statements do not facially implicate the defendant in the crime, however, there is no error. Two of the statements in this case were properly admitted because they do not implicate the others in any criminal activity. With regard to the third statement, the investigator stated to the jury that he could not reveal portions of Jason Harris's statement. While this might have aroused the jury’s curiosity, the court properly gave an instruction which was sufficient to satisfy the jury's curiosity without drawing attention to the fact that the investigator might have been leaving out Charlie's and Bill's names from Jason's statement. Issue 8: Victim’s scars The appellants argue that the court erred by sustaining the State's objection to the question on cross-examination of the state pathologist about non-surgical scars found on the victim's body, because they indicated that his death was not caused by the Harrises. It appears that the defendants were on a fishing expedition with regard to this evidence. Without an offer of proof or a good-faith basis for asking about the scars, the court did not abuse its discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
