Council v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-00403-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00403-COA ; 2006-CT-00403-SCT ; 2006-CT-00403-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-01-2007
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder - Peremptory challenges - Discovery violation - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(a) - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Dissenting Author : KING, P.J. AND IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2005
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A LIFE TERM IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers
Case Number: 04-627-CR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LISA HINTON COUNCIL




JONATHAN M. FARRIS



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

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 - Peremptory challenges - Discovery violation - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(a) - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Lisa Council was found guilty of murder by deliberate design and sentenced to serve a term of life. She appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Council argues that the court erred in failing to find that she had made a prima facie showing of the State’s purposeful racial discrimination in striking potential jurors from the panel. She argues that the court’s error is evident in its allowing the State to use ten of its twelve available peremptory challenges and one alternate challenge to strike African-American potential jurors from the jury. A friendship or having the acquaintance of a member of the defense team is an acceptable race-neutral reason to strike a venireman. A juror's reluctance to serve or preoccupation with matters outside the courtroom is a valid race-neutral reason. A family member’s conviction is a sufficient race neutral reason. A family member’s service in law enforcement is race neutral. A juror’s criminal history, as well as the existence of a valid outstanding arrest warrant for the juror, are race-neutral reasons to strike a juror. A juror who has already formed an opinion about the case is a valid race-neutral reason. The juror’s relationship with the defense attorney is sufficient as an acceptable race-neutral reason to strike. A personal relationship with the potential juror’s family member provides an adequate race-neutral reason. Inattentiveness, demeanor, sleeping during voir dire, and lack of eye contact are race-neutral reasons. The fact that a juror has already formed an opinion about the case is a valid race-neutral reason to strike them from the jury. Because these were the reasons given by the prosecutor for striking potential jurors, the court did not err in failing to find a Batson violation. Issue 2: Discovery violation Council argues that a new trial was warranted due to two instances she describes as discovery violations. Because Council did not request a continuance, this issue is waived. Issue 3: Hearsay Council characterizes the admittance of portions of testimony provided by two witnesses at trial as impermissible hearsay. The substance of the testimony that Council argues should not have been allowed consists of descriptions from two witnesses who overheard the ensuing argument between Council and the victim immediately before the victim was stabbed. This testimony qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule as a statement of a then-existing mental condition, or state of mind under M.R.E. 803(3). Issue 4: Prior bad acts Council argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to allow the introduction of her prior bad acts and former convictions. Generally, evidence of prior offenses or prior bad acts committed by a defendant, not resulting in conviction, is inadmissible for impeachment purposes under M.R.E. 404(a). However, M.R.E. 404(a)(1) excepts from the general rule barring the admittance of hearsay testimony evidence of a pertinent trait of the accused’s character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same. Once a defendant takes the stand in order to profess his good character, he or she opens the door, and the prosecution is allowed to respond to the defendant’s assertions of good character by impeaching him or her. Once Council testified regarding her trait of peacefulness with others, she then opened the door for the prosecutor to question her regarding other instances in which she was either charged or convicted of crimes against others. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Council argues that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict her of murder. Two witnesses testified to having heard the ensuing argument between Council and the victim moments prior to witnessing the victim fall to the ground, bleeding. Council, herself, testified to having stabbed the victim and admitted that the victim had not yet struck her or brandished a weapon when the stabbing occurred. The evidence before the jury was sufficient to support a guilty verdict.


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