Foster v. State
| Docket Number: | 95-DR-00750-SCT Linked Case(s): 95-DR-00750-SCT ; 95-DR-00750-SCT ; 95-DR-00750-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Motion to Withdraw Mandate Ordering Atkins Hearing, Vacate the Sentence of Death under Roper v. Simmons, and Impose a Sentence of Life Without Parole under Miss. Code Ann., Section 99-19-107 filed by the State of Mississippi is granted. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Mental retardation - Successive petition - Section 99-39-27(9) - Intervening decision - Age Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Cobb and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McRae, P.J. and Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Smith, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial/PCR Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION/Motion for Rehearing |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-1991 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: 11229 |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing filed by appellant is granted. The previous order and dissenting statements are withdrawn, and these opinions are substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ronald Chris Foster a/k/a Ron Chris Foster |
SILAS W. McCHAREN
JAMES W. CRAIG
ANDRE DE GRUY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 post-conviction relief - Mental retardation - Successive petition - Section 99-39-27(9) - Intervening decision - Age |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the previous order. Ronald Foster filed a Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence and Motion for Stay of Execution. Thereafter, Governor Ronnie Musgrove issued a reprieve with respect to Foster's execution finding that the issue of whether Foster is mentally retarded has not been specifically addressed under the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mental retardation Foster argues that he is mentally retarded and that his execution is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Foster relies primarily on a psychological evaluation which found that Foster's performance was in the mildly mentally retarded range. The State relies on an IQ test it states was performed at Whitfield in 1990, where Foster was allegedly shown to have an IQ of 80. A finding of retardation under the case Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), includes intellectual functioning and numerous other factors. No judicial determination has been made as to Foster on those factors. Atkins is an intervening decision under section 99-39-27(9) such that the procedural bars raised by the State, that of timeliness and successive application, are not applicable. Under the Eighth Amendment as construed by the Supreme Court in Atkins, Foster is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of his alleged mental retardation. The standard or definition of mental retardation shall be that enunciated by the Supreme Court in Atkins, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II is to be administered since its associated validity scales make the test best suited to detect malingering. Issue 2: Age Foster argues that his execution is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment because he was seventeen years old at the time he killed the victim. The U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the execution of those who committed their crimes at age fifteen but declined to do so for those who committed their crimes at age sixteen or seventeen. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
