Clemons v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02143-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Insanity instructions - Accomplice instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Victim’s character Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-16-2005 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN Case Number: 05-CR-089-NS-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HILLMAN SEVE BALLESTEROUS CLEMONS A/K/A HOT DOG A/K/A HI-C |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Insanity instructions - Accomplice instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Victim’s character |
| Summary of the Facts: | Hillman Clemons was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Insanity instructions Clemons argues that he was entitled to separate instructions to support his insanity defense. The court may refuse an instruction that is without evidentiary foundation. Clemons presented no evidence that he was insane at the time he murdered the victim. It was clear from Clemons’s testimony that he knew it was wrong to kill people but that he felt justified in killing the victim. A psychiatrist who was the State’s expert witness testified that Clemons’s actions prior to and after the murder clearly show that Clemons was aware of the nature of the act of murder. Because there was no foundation in the evidence to support Clemons’s insanity defense, the insanity jury instructions were properly refused. Issue 2: Accomplice testimony Clemons argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a jury instruction concerning accomplice testimony. A cautionary instruction is warranted when the testimony of an accomplice is unreasonable, self contradictory or substantially impeached. Although one could infer that another person was an accomplice due to her actions prior to and after the death, her testimony was not unreasonable, self contradictory or substantially impeached. Futhermore, since Clemons confessed to the murder, there was no question as to his guilt. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the accomplice instruction. Issue 3: Manslaughter instruction Clemons argues that the court erred in refusing to allow a jury instruction concerning manslaughter, because he killed the victim in the heat of passion. The evidence showed that Clemons forged the victim’s name on a life insurance policy, bought a gun, threatened to kill the victim, put on gloves, informed another person that “today’s the day” and proceeded to shoot the victim eight times. Furthermore, there was no testimony of any provocation by the victim. Therefore, the court did not err in refusing to grant a manslaughter instruction. Issue 4: Victim’s character Clemons argues that he should have been allowed to introduce evidence pertaining to the victim’s character, specifically his alcohol consumption and violent behavior. The court found that the victim’s reputation for violence was not relevant since Clemons was not arguing that the victim was the initial aggressor, which would be allowed under M.R.E. 404(a)(2). In addition, evidence of the victim’s abuse towards Clemons was already before the jury. Therefore, there was no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
