Jackson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 98-DR-00708-SCT
Linked Case(s): 98-DR-00708-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-07-2003
Opinion Author: McRae, P.J.
Holding: Appellant's Application for Leave to file Petition for Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief is denied.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty: Post-conviction relief - Lesser included offense instruction - Intent to kill - Constitutionality of death penalty - Mental health evaluation - Incrimination - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Competency to stand trial - Denial of right to be present at trial - Improper prosecutorial argument - Sympathy instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-14-1991
Appealed from: Leflore Circuit County Court
Judge: Gray Evans
Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
District Attorney: Frank Carlton
Case Number: 21817

Note: Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Circuit Court with the Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Henry Curtis Jackson, Jr.




DAVID P. VOISIN ROBERT RYAN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR.  

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: Death penalty: Post-conviction relief - Lesser included offense instruction - Intent to kill - Constitutionality of death penalty - Mental health evaluation - Incrimination - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Competency to stand trial - Denial of right to be present at trial - Improper prosecutorial argument - Sympathy instruction

Summary of the Facts: Henry Jackson, Jr., was convicted in 1991 of capital murder and sentenced to death for the stabbing deaths of four children. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Jackson has filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief in circuit court and an application for leave to file motion to vacate conviction and/or death sentence.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Lesser included offense instruction Jackson argues he was entitled to a manslaughter instruction. This claim was raised on direct appeal in two separate propositions and decided adversely to Jackson. Therefore, the claim is res judicata. However, Jackson claims that this Court’s decision in Kolberg v. State is an intervening decision which allows him to raise the claim again. Kolberg announced no new rule of law that would adversely affect the conviction or sentence in the present case and is not an intervening decision. Issue 2: Intent Jackson argues that since the jury did not find that he intended to kill, he was not death eligible and his death sentence is unconstitutional. This claim was not raised at trial or on direct appeal and is therefore barred. In addition, there is no requirement that the jury find that the defendant intended to kill in order to impose the death penalty upon a felony murder conviction. Issue 3: Constitutionality of death penalty Jackson argues that the Mississippi death penalty scheme, as a whole, and the provisions relating to child abuse/battery capital murder are unconstitutional because they fail to narrow the death eligible class. This claim is barred because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Mississippi’s capital sentencing scheme, as a whole, is constitutional. Issue 4: Mental health evaluation Jackson argues that since the doctor who conducted his mental health examination was employed by the Mississippi Department of Corrections and had treated Jackson for depression previously, that he was laboring under a conflict of interest. This claim, having been raised and addressed on a different legal and factual theory is nonetheless barred from relitigation. In addition, a petitioner is not constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of an expert witness. Issue 5: Incrimination Jackson argues that he was compelled to incriminate himself by submitting to the doctor’s evaluation. This claim was not raised at trial or on direct appeal and is therefore barred from consideration here. In addition, there is no foundation to Jackson’s claim. Issue 6: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jackson argues that the attorney who filed the petition for rehearing in this case was ineffective in failing to point out that footnote four of this Court’s opinion on direct appeal was incorrect and that this Court failed to address the issue of Jackson being in his prison attire in front of the jury venire. While counsel who filed the petition for rehearing may have had a duty to point out that the Court failed to address this claim, Jackson fails to demonstrate both deficient performance and actual. There is no showing that had he been in alternative nondescript clothing, the outcome of his trial and sentence would be different. Jackson also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain an independent, competent and reliable mental health evaluation at an earlier date. Jackson did not raise an insanity defense; it was abandoned because he was unable to present any evidence to create a M’Naghten question. Jackson also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to produce additional mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase of trial. However, trial counsel called seven mitigation witnesses including the doctor and Jackson’s probation officer. Given this testimony, it is doubtful the outcome of Jackson’s sentence would be different had any other witnesses testified. Jackson also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a comment on responsibility during the State’s cross-examination of the doctor during the sentencing phase. As to responsibility, in any case, the jury had already found Jackson guilty. Moreover, trial counsel raised the underlying claim on direct appeal and this Court held it barred for failure to object at the time. Issue 7: Competency to stand trial Jackson argues that because he was too depressed to complete a neuropsychological screening test, he was incompetent to assist his attorneys and therefore incompetent to stand trial. This claim was not raised at trial or on direct appeal and is therefore barred. In addition, Jackson was examined by two experts and found competent to stand trial. Issue 8: Denial of right to be present at trial Jackson argues he was denied his right to be present at trial and that the court should have held a competency hearing to determine whether he was competent to waive his presence at trial. Neither of these claims were raised at trial or on direct appeal and are therefore barred. In addition, Jackson left the courtroom of his own free will in each instance. The record also shows that he was competent to waive his right to be present as all of his departures resulted from trial times during which evidence or testimony was presented illustrating the damage he caused his victims. Issue 9: Improper prosecutorial argument Jackson argues that the prosecution made improper jury arguments based on the Bible and biblical teachings. Not only did Jackson fail to object at trial or on direct appeal, but arguments with scriptural, religious or biblical references are proper subjects for comment during closing, especially when they are responsive to those of defense counsel. Jackson also argues the prosecutor improperly commented on Jackson’s failure to take the stand and testify, gave an incorrect explanation of the nature of mitigation, misled the jury as to mitigating factors, and offered her personal opinion on the quality and credibility of defense witnesses during the sentencing phase. Not only are all of these claims barred, but they do not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel by deciding not to object. Issue 10: Sympathy instruction Jackson argues that the jury instruction to disregard sympathy, part of an approved long-sentencing instruction, was given by the court in error. This claim was addressed on direct appeal and found to be without merit. Further, the present instruction and similar instructions have been approved by this Court many times.


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