Walden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-02009-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-02009-COA ; 2006-CT-02009-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - M.R.E. 802 - M.R.E. 103(a)(1) - Statements by judge - M.R.E. 611 - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence 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: 10-11-2006 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND OF SHOOTING INTO AN OCCUPIED DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND ON PROBATION, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, AND TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,500 TO THE CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND. District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 11,570 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | NATHANIEL WALDEN |
GEORGE S. SHADDOCK |
|
|
| 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: | Murder & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - M.R.E. 802 - M.R.E. 103(a)(1) - Statements by judge - M.R.E. 611 - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Nathaniel Walden was convicted of the crimes of murder and shooting into an occupied dwelling. For the crime of murder, court sentenced Walden to life. For the crime of shooting into an occupied dwelling, the court imposed a sentence of ten years, with five years suspended and on probation. Walden appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Walden argues that the court erred by admitting his prior statements because the statements were a product of Walden's confusion after the death of his sister-in-law and their admission stretched M.R.E. 801(d)(2) to impermissible limits; there was no predicate foundation for the deputy's testimony about the statements; and the sole purpose of using the deputy to introduce the statements was to pre-impeach Walden, if he chose to testify. M.R.E. 802 provides that hearsay is inadmissible except as provided by law. However, under M.R.E. 801(d)(2), a party's own statement offered against the party is not hearsay. Therefore, Walden's statements offered against him were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2). At the trial level, Walden did not object to the admission of the statements on foundational grounds or on the grounds of improper impeachment. Therefore, the merits of his arguments on these subjects will not be considered since, as provided in M.R.E. 103(a)(1), a party objecting to the admission of evidence must state the specific ground for the objection, if the specific ground is not apparent from the context. Issue 2: Statements by judge Walden argues that certain statements and rulings by the trial judge during the trial indicated that the judge was predisposed in favor of a conviction, rendering his trial unfair. A case will be reversed if the trial judge displays partiality, becomes an advocate, or, in any significant way, conveys to the jury the impression that he has sided with the prosecution. In the first instance, the trial judge asked defense counsel to speak more softly. It is apparent that the trial judge's comment was well within the realm of reasonable measures which a judge may take in order to control courtroom proceedings. Walden complains that the trial judge showed partiality by limiting his cross-examination of a witness concerning her reluctance to testify. Nothing about this exchange indicated that the trial judge was biased against Walden or against his defense counsel. Walden argues that the trial judge demonstrated bias by allowing the prosecutor undue leeway on the cross-examination of Walden. The trial judge acted to maintain the orderly and coherent presentation of witness testimony. In addition, the trial judge demonstrated no bias or partiality by determining that the prosecutor's questions were within the scope of cross-examination as stated in M.R.E. 611. Issue 3: Jury instruction Walden argues that he was prevented from presenting his theory of the case to the jury when the court denied his jury instruction which instructed the jury to find Walden not guilty if it found that Walden, without design or deliberation to cause death, possessed a pistol and "in the heat of passion in a struggle between James Walden and Nathaniel Walden the fatal shot was fired accidentally and through misfortune, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation." While a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that presents his theory of the case, this entitlement is limited by the court's ability to refuse a defense instruction that incorrectly states the law or lacks a foundation in the evidence. Walden's theory of the case was based upon his own testimony that he intentionally fired each shot. There was no evidence from which a jury could have found that Walden fired the shots accidentally. Therefore, his jury instruction lacked an evidentiary foundation. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Walden argues that there was no evidence that he fired the gun with deliberate design to effect death. However, a witness testified that before Walden returned to James's property and began shooting, Walden discussed his anger at James. A defendant's statement that he wanted to kill the victim made prior to the fatal act is evidence of malice. In addition, other evidence supported a finding that Walden acted with a deliberate design to kill James. This included the testimony that Walden shot at James first and the testimony that James retreated into the trailer house and then Walden shot into the trailer house. By operation of law, Walden's intent to kill James was transferred from James to the actual victim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
