Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00656-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-00656-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 02-20-2003 Opinion Author: Pittman, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved heart murder - Murder instruction - Initial aggressor - M.R.E. 803(3) - Cautionary instruction - Admission of confessions - Victim’s scars Judge(s) Concurring: McRae, P.J., Waller, Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Smith, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Easley and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Cobb, J., Dissent Joined By : Easley, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2001 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: John Kitchens Case Number: 2000-144 |
|
| 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 | ||
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jason Harris |
|||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi |
|
||
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 - Initial aggressor - M.R.E. 803(3) - Cautionary instruction - Admission of confessions - Victim’s scars |
| Summary of the Facts: | 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,” there is no error where the jury is instructed that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the murder "not in necessary self-defense" and instructed to acquit where the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only was there no instruction given which included this language, but the depraved-heart murder instruction did not inform the jury that they should acquit the Harrises if the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not done "in necessary self defense." The element "not in necessary self-defense" is an essential element to be proven in this case, and the Harrises were entitled to have the jury adequately instructed concerning the issue. Issue 2: 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. Issue 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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 goodfaith 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
