Lindsey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01337-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01337-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Juror misconduct - Exclusion of witnesses - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-17-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTION OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCE TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 01-1-465-01-CRY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CEDRIC LINDSEY |
DAVEY L. TUCKER |
||
| 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: | Manslaughter - Juror misconduct - Exclusion of witnesses - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric Lindsey was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Juror misconduct Lindsey argues that the court erred when it refused to conduct an Odom hearing on a charge of juror misconduct. In particular, he claims a juror failed to honestly respond to questions during voir dire. Where a prospective juror fails to respond to a question during voir dire, upon motion for new trial, the trial court should determine whether the question was relevant to the voir dire examination; whether it was unambiguous; and whether the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited.” If so, the court should then determine if prejudice to the defendant in selecting the jury reasonably could be inferred from the juror’s failure to respond. The question here is whether Lindsey may rely on his mother’s post-trial concern about one of the jurors, which she recognized during the trial and did not bring to the court’s attention until after the trial was completed, to claim that his right to exercise peremptory challenges was impeded by the juror’s failure to answer an unambiguous question. The resolution of this matter is based on the trial court’s consideration of the evidence submitted to support the motion for a new trial. The trial court clearly found Lindsey’s mother’s affidavit to lack credibility and there were not sufficient grounds to grant the motion. The trial judge’s ruling was within his discretion. Issue 2: Exclusion of witnesses Lindsey argues that the court erred in excluding certain defense witnesses and limiting the testimony of others. Evidence cannot be excluded unless the circuit court determines that the defendant’s discovery violation is willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence. In this case, the prosecution objected before the defendant put on his case, because the defendant had merely given the name, telephone number and addresses of its witnesses and did not provide a summary of their oral statements. All that the defense told the prosecution was that these witnesses would testify consistent with their preliminary hearing testimony and in the case of one witness, consistent with his police statement. The trial court limited the witnesses’ testimony accordingly. Lindsey admitted to taking oral statements from these witnesses. He offered no reason whatsoever for not disclosing the statements, even though the case had been pending for approximately four years. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding/limiting the testimony. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Lindsey argues that the verdict is against the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. It was undisputed that Lindsey killed the victim, without malice, in the heat of passion with the use of a dangerous weapon. The only contested issue was whether Lindsey acted in self-defense. There was undisputed testimony that Lindsey was the only one in the fight with a dangerous weapon. All others were using their fists. There was evidence that in the middle of the fight with the victim, Lindsey left and then returned with the knife. This was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Lindsey was not acting in self-defense. Given the evidence, the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
