Havard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00603-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00603-COA ; 2006-CT-00603-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligently injuring others while DUI - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Juror’s dual roles Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-01-2006 Appealed from: WILKINSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: CONVICTION OF NEGLIGENT INJURY TO OTHERS WHILE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS OF PROBATION. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 04-KR-008-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID MARK HAVARD |
DAVID M. READ
CLAUDE PINTARD |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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: | Negligently injuring others while DUI - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Juror’s dual roles |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Havard was convicted of negligently injuring others while driving under the influence and was sentenced to ten years with five years to serve followed by five years of probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury selection Havard argues that the court violated the statutory method of drawing and summoning the jury. Havard’s complaints are focused on the fact that the court empaneled nine jurors who had been on the venire panel for the previous court term. Because there was an insufficient number of jurors to form a panel, the court had those nine jurors return for service at the next term of court. Unless the defendant shows that the method used was fraudulent or a radical departure from the method prescribed by statute as to be unfair or to prevent due process of law, the appellate court will not reverse on this issue. Havard does not allege that any deficiency in jury selection resulted in prejudice to his case or that the nine jurors were not legally qualified to serve as jurors. There is absolutely no evidence that the jury was unfair or partial. Therefore, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 2: Challenge for cause Havard argues that the court erred in overruling his challenge for cause of a juror who stated that eight or nine years previously he had been in an automobile accident involving a drunk driver and had been injured. Considering that the juror responded that he could decide the case based purely on the evidence, the judge did not abuse her discretion. Issue 3: Juror’s dual roles Havard argues that reversible error occurred when the same person served on the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him. If grand juror Andrews was the same person as petit juror Andrews, it appears that she did not remember indicting Havard. During voir dire, the circuit court and the prosecution asked the venire panel whether anyone had any personal knowledge of the facts of the case or if they had been talked to about the facts of the case. Andrews did not respond. Also, it is very well possible that Andrews sat on the grand jury that returned the indictment against Havard, but it is not certain or definite. The indictment only contains the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, and that person was not Andrews. An appellate court must have a record which shows, affirmatively or negatively, the facts of a case. The record is insufficient to find any merit to the asserted error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
