Bailey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02109-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802 - Cautionary instruction 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: 06-17-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PAROLE District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-04-00636 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES PRESTON BAILEY |
JAMES DONALD EVANS |
||
| 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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802 - Cautionary instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Bailey was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to life as an habitual offender without the benefit of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Bailey argues that the guilty verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. The victim’s wife made an in-court identification of Bailey as the man with whom her husband had argued. She identified Bailey as the last person she saw with her husband. An anonymous tip was received by police naming Bailey as the killer of an unknown white man and that Bailey had buried this man in Bailey’s backyard. Dogs trained in locating cadavers searched the area and each separately designated the same spot which was later excavated and contained the remains of the victim. When considering the testimony in a light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient proof for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bailey murdered the victim. Bailey argues that the only evidence to support the charge of murder against him was the testimony of his alleged accomplice. If the evidence gives a reasonable inference that the person may have been a co-perpetrator or the sole perpetrator, then the person is an accomplice. On the other hand, an accessory-after-the-fact has been defined as a person assisting one who has completed the commission of a felony to avoid being apprehended, arrested, convicted, etc. No evidence was shown that the supposed accomplice agreed with Bailey to murder the victim, that she planned the murder, that she helped Bailey stab the victim or that she encouraged Bailey at any time during the murder. The evidence does demonstrate how she helped Bailey clean up his bloody clothes, served as lookout during the victim’s burial and did not notify authorities of the murder until police confronted her more than a year later with the evidence. Her actions are considered those of an accessory-after-the-fact, the charge to which she pled guilty. Issue 2: Exclusion of testimony Bailey argues that the court committed reversible error when it excluded testimony from a detective about statements the detective took from two inmates regarding his accomplice’s comments about the murder. Pursuant to M.R.E. 801© and 802, the court correctly refused to allow hearsay testimony from the officer regarding what the inmates told him that the accomplice said. Had Bailey wanted to inquire about these alleged statements, he should have called the inmates themselves to testify. Issue 3: Cautionary instruction Bailey argues that the court erred in refusing his cautionary accomplice instruction. A cautionary instruction about accomplice testimony is not required unless there is a reasonable inference that the witness is an accomplice. Since the witness was an accessory-after-the-fact, not an accomplice, no accomplice instruction was needed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
