Flowers v. State
| Docket Number: | 1999-DP-01369-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-DP-01369-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prosecutorial misconduct - M.R.E. 613 - Prior statements - Closing argument - Sentencing deliberation - Instructing the jury - Hearsay - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Aggravating factor of knowingly creating a great risk of death to many persons - Anti-sympathy instruction - Cumulative effect of errors Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J., and Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - DIRECT APPEAL |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-31-1999 Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 97-372 |
|
| Note: | Motion to Modify/Clarify Opinion filed by the State of Mississippi is granted. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Curtis Giovanni Flowers |
F. KEITH BALL
JAMES W. CRAIG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR. JUDY T. MARTIN |
|
|
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 - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prosecutorial misconduct - M.R.E. 613 - Prior statements - Closing argument - Sentencing deliberation - Instructing the jury - Hearsay - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Aggravating factor of knowingly creating a great risk of death to many persons - Anti-sympathy instruction - Cumulative effect of errors |
| Summary of the Facts: | This opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Curtis Flowers was convicted of and sentenced to death for murder. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Other crimes’ evidence Flowers argues that because the State presented an overwhelming amount of evidence and testimony regarding the other three victims, he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is inadmissible under M.R.E. 404(b) unless it is introduced to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. In addition, proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences. Although Flowers was indicted separately for each of the four murders, there were repeated occurrences of the introduction of evidence of the other three victims including photographs, corresponding slides, autopsy diagrams and extensive testimony regarding the killing of the three other victims. Although two of the bodies were found near the victim for which Flowers was on trial in this case, one was not. In addition, exhibits were introduced which all pertained to projectiles, fragments, casings or cartridges which were found nowhere near Stewart's body. Therefore, they were clearly not relevant to the case. The same is true of pictures of the other individual victims. The admission of this evidence, both testimony and exhibits, was highly prejudicial to Flowers. While it was clearly necessary for the State to introduce some evidence to the jury pertaining to the other three victims to ensure a complete and rational story, the State crossed the line. The jury should have been allowed to see only those pictures necessary to depict the crime scene. The State also went too far in allowing its witnesses to testify as to the specific wounds of the other three victims using the autopsy diagrams. Flowers was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Flowers argues that prosecutorial misconduct occurred at several stages throughout the trial including the attempted impeachment of witnesses by the prosecutor without a factual basis, and the prosecutor's arguing of facts not in evidence. Under M.R.E. 613, which governs prior statements of witnesses, the witness should be given an opportunity to explain on cross-examination about whether or not on a specific date, at a specific place, and in the presence of specific persons, the witness made a particular statement. Because counsel must have a good faith basis for any question asked on cross-examination, he may not use prior inconsistent statements as a guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible. When the proper predicate for impeachment is laid, the State must continue with the impeachment and show a basis in fact for the question or offer a subsequent witness in rebuttal to prove the statements were true that the witnesses lied. Here, the only attempt by the prosecutor to prove that the three defense witnesses lied during cross-examination about statements they had made was to ask one question during redirect that was stricken from the record. This line of questioning without evidentiary basis was inflammatory and highly prejudicial. With regard to the remarks made during closing argument, attorneys are afforded wide latitude in arguing their cases to the jury but are not allowed to employ tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury and cannot state facts which are not in evidence. Over one-half of the comments at issue relate to the State’s accusing the defense witnesses of either changing their stories or trying to get prosecution witnesses to lie for the defendant. By specifically accusing the defendant and the defense of trying to coerce prosecution witnesses into lying, the State attempted to create a prejudice against Flowers that would influence the jury. The remaining comments concern alleged misstatements of facts by the prosecution. The cumulative effect of the State's repeated instances of arguing facts not in evidence was to deny Flowers his right to a fair trial. Issue 3: Sentencing deliberation Flowers argues that the court had the authority to answer the question asked by the jury during sentencing deliberation, i.e., to tell the jury that life without parole is life without parole. A defendant on trial for capital murder may only be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the eligibility of parole. By giving only the sentencing options of death or life imprisonment without parole, the trial judge properly gave the jury all the instructions that were needed. In addition, he correctly instructed the jury to refer back to the instructions which had been previously given. Issue 4: Hearsay Flowers argues that the evidence put on by the prosecution through one of their experts was based solely on hearsay. The expert was allowed to testify regarding the shoe impression. M.R.E. 703 provides that facts or data need not be admissible in evidence if they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. The expert in this case was qualified to testify regarding his forensic testing performed on the Fila Olympic shoes. However, he also testified, based on what was told to him by the Fila representative, that if he had performed an analysis on other shoes, those, too, would be consistent with the impressions. Because this statement was only offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the court erred in admitting it. Issue 5: Aggravating factor of knowingly creating a great risk of death to many persons Flowers argues that by obtaining four separate indictments, the State was forced to rely on the other three victims to prove the aggravating factor of knowingly creating a great risk of death to many persons which violated the Eighth and Fifth Amendments. The use of this aggravator is restricted to those crimes where a very large number of individuals were at risk or to where the safety of those, other than an intended few, is jeopardized. The risk must be to someone other than the intended victim. Therefore, the use of this aggravator does not violate either the Eighth or Fifth Amendment. Because the murders took place while the store was open for business, it was also likely that customers could have been in the store. Therefore, the aggravator was properly submitted to the jury. Issue 6: Anti-sympathy instruction Flowers argues that the court erred in submitting an anti-sympathy instruction to the jury. The instruction given in this case has been upheld in prior cases. Issue 7: Cumulative effect Flowers argues that the errors had a cumulative impact at his trial. While the previously cited errors alone are sufficient to warrant reversal, when considered together, these errors also have such a cumulative effect as to require reversal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
