Howard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2000-DP-01280-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-DP-01280-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty - Sufficiency of evidence - Admission of former testimony - Mistrial - Reasonable doubt instruction - Unanimous verdict - URCCC 3.10 - Competency hearing - Bite mark evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Facial expressions - Miranda warnings - DNA analysis - Proportionality analysis - Section 99-19-105 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Diaz, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Cobb, J., Concurs in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - DIRECT APPEAL |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2000 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 92-400-CR1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eddie Lee Howard, Jr. |
GARY GOODWIN
ARMSTRONG WALTERS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JUDY T. MARTIN MARVIN L. WHITE |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Admission of former testimony - Mistrial - Reasonable doubt instruction - Unanimous verdict - URCCC 3.10 - Competency hearing - Bite mark evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Facial expressions - Miranda warnings - DNA analysis - Proportionality analysis - Section 99-19-105 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Howard, Jr., was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His first conviction and sentence were reversed and remanded for a new trial on the basis that he was not competent to represent himself. On retrial, he was again convicted of capital murder with the underlying felonies of rape and arson and again sentenced to death. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Howard attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction even in the absence of fingerprint and DNA evidence. Howard's dentition matched the bite marks found on the victim's body, he lived two blocks away from her, his former girlfriend testified that he liked to bite her on the breast and neck during intercourse, he smelled of burnt wood or clothes the morning after the murder, and he confessed that he had a temper and that's why this happened. Issue 2: Admission of former testimony Howard argues that the court erred in admitting the former testimony of a witness, because the State did not adequately establish that the witness was unavailable and the previous testimony was not subject to thorough cross-examination. To use a witness's former testimony, the State must prove the unavailability of the witness by diligent effort. In this case, the witness now lived in Texas and stated she was pregnant and due the week of trial. The State subsequently supplemented the record with a letter from her doctor confirming her pregnancy. In addition, her testimony was not indicative of Howard's guilt. Issue 3: Mistrial Howard argues that the court erred in refusing his motion for mistrial when a witness inadvertently stated that Howard had previously been in the penitentiary. A mistrial is reserved for those instances where a court cannot take any action to correct improper occurrences inside or outside the courtroom. Here, the court instructed the jury to disregard the witness’s answer. Issue 4: Reasonable doubt instruction Howard argues that the court erred in refusing his instruction dealing with reasonable doubt, because the failure to include this instruction left the jury uninstructed as to what to do if they were uncertain as to guilt. Where a jury is adequately instructed on reasonable doubt, there is no reversible error for the court to refuse to give a defense instruction on it. Here, there were other instructions addressing reasonable doubt. Issue 5: Unanimous verdict When the jury returned a verdict of death, one juror indicated that the verdict of death was not his verdict. The court instructed the jury to retire to the jury room and resume deliberations. Howard argues that the court should have instructed the jury that jurors need not surrender their convictions regarding guilt or innocence and that the court should have reread the instruction providing for the elements to be considered, the weighing of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the form of the verdict. URCCC 3.10 authorizes the trial judge to return the jury for further deliberations. Rule 3.10 also does not mandate further instruction when jurors are unable to agree. Here, the judge did not coerce the jury into imposing a death sentence but did what was permitted by Rule 3.10 and sent the jury back for further deliberations. Issue 6: Competency hearing Howard argues that the court erred by failing to require his counsel to proceed with an insanity defense. Howard's competency was evaluated, evidently more than once, and the judge stated as much on the record. Apparently, no reasonable grounds were present to indicate that Howard was insane which would necessitate a Rule 9.06 competency hearing. Issue 7: Bite mark evidence Howard argues that the court erred in admitting testimony on bite mark evidence. Bite mark evidence is not inadmissible but is subject to challenges to weight and credibility by the defense via attacking the qualifications of the expert and the factual and logical bases upon which the expert relied. Here, the court did not err in admitting this testimony. Issue 8: Ineffective assistance of counsel Howard argues that his trial counsel was ineffective, because he failed to retain an expert in forensic odontology to rebut the bite mark testimony. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Howard has failed to establish both deficient performance and prejudice. The argument that counsel's failure to obtain an expert is not only wrong but also is indicative of sound trial strategy. Issue 9: Facial expressions Howard argues that the judge made improper facial expressions of disbelief and disapproval during defense counsel's opening statement and closing argument. Not only did he fail to object, but there is no indication whatsoever in the record to indicate as much. Issue 10: Miranda warnings Howard argues that he was interrogated on two occasions shortly after the murder and that the officers failed to read him his Miranda warnings. There is absolutely no substantiation in the record to support such an assertion. Issue 11: DNA analysis Howard argues that the District Attorney and police conspired to frame him, because a newspaper article stated that the Columbus Police Chief had indicated that DNA evidence was sent to the FBI crime lab, but the District Attorney said that no DNA analysis was run. There was no DNA testing because there was no DNA sample to be tested. Issue 12: Proportionality analysis Section 99-19-105 requires the Court to review the proportionality of the death penalty. There is no evidence that the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion or prejudice, but there is evidence supporting the finding of the aggravating factors. None of the mitigating circumstances are present. Compared to other cases, the sentence of death is not excessive or disproportionate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
