Branch v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01769-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01769-COA ; 2010-CT-01769-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-16-2013 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim's prior bad acts - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 805 - Double hearsay - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Witness tampering - Expansion of record Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): James, J. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-05-2010 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2009-0061-CR |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and our original opinion is withdrawn with this opinion substituted in lieu thereof. The judgment of the Attala County Circuit Court of conviction of murder and sentence of life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections is affirmed. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Austin Branch a/k/a Austin Branch |
LOUIS F. COLEMAN
ROBERT GEOFFREY PARRISH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY 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: | Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim's prior bad acts - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 805 - Double hearsay - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Witness tampering - Expansion of record |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. William Branch was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Branch argues that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. The State provided evidence that Branch and the victim were involved in a verbal and physical altercation resulting in tension between the men that lasted the remainder of the evening in question. The State further showed that Branch fatally shot the victim in the back of the head. The jury was presented with evidence that Branch retrieved a .38 special revolver from his sister’s boyfriend prior to driving the victim to his property and that Branch fatally shot the victim using the revolver. The jury was also shown evidence of Branch’s self-defense theory. However, this evidence was contradicted by proof regarding the location and trajectory of the bullet wound to the back of the victim’s head. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Branch argues that the circuit court erred by not allowing the introduction of evidence about the victim’s prior bad acts. Specifically, Branch attempted to call a witness to testify regarding certain statements a person made to the witness concerning statements the victim made to the person. The court properly excluded the testimony has double hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c) and 805. Branch fails to assert a hearsay exception applicable to any of the statements sought to be introduced. Branch also claims the circuit court erred in prohibiting the introduction of evidence of the victim’s past alleged threats and acts of violence as allowed by M.R.E. 404(a)(2). However, Branch has failed to note specifically how the circuit court denied him the opportunity to present evidence that either he exhibited a character of peacefulness or that the victim was the aggressor. Thus, there is no error. Issue 3: Witness tampering Branch argues that the circuit court erred by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte after learning that a person, who was present in the courtroom during Branch’s testimony, discussed the testimony with a witness who had already testified but was available for recall. Because Branch’s attorney did not request a mistrial, there is no error. Issue 4: Expansion of record Branch argues that the appellate court erred in denying his motion to expand the record to include an affidavit that was made after the appeal was perfected and during the time for the appellate briefs to be drafted. This affidavit corroborated Branch’s testimony at trial. However, there is nothing in the record to show whether the claims in the affidavit have any basis in fact. Reviewing the merits of any such claim is not proper for an appellate court because these issues were not reviewed by the trial court. Rather, Branch may request leave to file for post-conviction relief, since this avenue is better suited to examining his claim than direct-appellate review. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
