Brown v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-00717-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-11-2007
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - Illegal arrest - Denial of jury instructions - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Torture - Competency - Suppression of evidence - Shackling - Cruel and unusual punishment
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2006
Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Michael M. Taylor
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FOUR YEARS SUSPENDED AND FOUR YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Dee Bates
Case Number: 05-428-PKT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: AMANDA ROCHELLE BROWN




CHARLES E. MILLER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

    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: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - Illegal arrest - Denial of jury instructions - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Torture - Competency - Suppression of evidence - Shackling - Cruel and unusual punishment

    Summary of the Facts: Amanda Brown was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years, with four years suspended and four years of post-release supervision. She appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Brown argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction of manslaughter, because the testimony of an eyewitness was not corroborated by any of the police officers and was, therefore, unreliable. To support its case, the State presented the murder weapon, eyewitness testimony that Brown stabbed the victim during an argument, the testimony of various police officers, and the conclusions of the coroner and the doctor who performed the autopsy. The defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the eyewitness and bring out the fact that she initially agreed with Brown’s account. Brown also took the stand and gave her own version of what happened that night. This evidence was sufficient and reliable to support the conviction of Brown. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Brown argues that the court allowed police officers and other witnesses to testify that she previously stabbed her stepfather. The only reference to this bad act is in an audiotape introduced by and played to the jury by the defense. Contrary to Brown’s assertions on appeal, the State objected to the playing of the tape in court. Because Brown introduced the tape and played it to the jury, she cannot now assert that it is reversible error on appeal. Issue 3: Illegal arrest Brown argues that as a result of the eyewitness’s uncorroborated testimony, she was arrested, held, and questioned without probable cause. To make an arrest for a felony, either with or without a warrant, a police officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe that the person proposed to be arrested is the one who committed it. Based on the police investigation and the conclusions of the coroner and the doctor who performed the autopsy, there was reasonable cause to believe a homicide had been committed. From the eyewitness’s account and the circumstances surrounding the death, there was also probable cause to arrest Brown for the murder. While the eyewitness did change her story, it was consistent with the evidence, and none of the police officers who interviewed her believed that her initial story was true. Issue 4: Denial of jury instructions Brown argues that the court erred in denying certain defense jury instructions. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) provides that the appellant’s brief shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. In this case, Brown cites no authority for her contention that the instructions were improperly denied, nor does she provide any argument to support her contention. Furthermore, the jury instructions as a whole fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice nor reversible error. Issue 5: Torture Brown argues that she was tortured while incarcerated at the Pike County Sheriff’s Department. Brown cites no authority for her proposition that the trial court should have dismissed the case based on the alleged torture by the Sheriff’s Department. Issue 6: Competency Brown argues that because she was a twenty year old minor and pregnant, she was not competent to stand trial. A defendant not competent to stand trial is one who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or does not have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Brown did not assert any mental incompetency until the fifth day of trial. In addition to the lack of evidence to indicate Brown was incompetent is the fact that she later took the stand at trial and presented rational testimony. Accordingly, the trial judge properly considered the issue of Brown’s competence and properly denied her request for a mental examination. Issue 7: Suppression of evidence Brown argues that the court erred by failing to suppress physical evidence including but not limited to audiotapes, the murder weapon, and photographs of the crime scene. Because her arrest was supported by probable cause, there is no merit to her assertion that the police illegally obtained the listed evidentiary items. Not only was Brown’s arrest legal but most of the evidence was recovered before her arrest. Issue 8: Shackling Brown argues that jurors were present at a time when she was shackled. The record reflects that it was at most questionable if any of the members of the venire saw Brown in handcuffs. Because no members of the venire indicated that they saw Brown on the morning in question, this issue is without merit. Even if someone had seen her, it would only have been momentarily and would not have been sufficient to require reversal. Issue 9: Cruel and unusual punishment Brown argues that the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. A sentence that is within the guidelines provided for by the legislature will not be considered cruel and unusual. Brown’s sentence of twenty years with four years suspended and four of years post-release supervision is within the statutory guidelines.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court