Grant v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00108-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00108-COA ; 2007-CT-00108-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-19-2008
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder - Death of co-conspirator - Jury instruction - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 401 - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - Habitual offender status - M.R.E. 902 - M.R.E. 901 - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, and Roberts, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2006
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Michael R. Eubanks
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE
District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell
Case Number: K2004-536E

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: ROBERT L. GRANT




JAMES L. GRAY, EARL LINDSAY CARTER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN  

    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: Capital murder - Death of co-conspirator - Jury instruction - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 401 - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - Habitual offender status - M.R.E. 902 - M.R.E. 901 - Weight of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Robert Grant was convicted of capital murder. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Death of co-conspirator Grant argues that the capital murder statute in Mississippi should not apply when the deceased is a co-conspirator in the underlying felony and not an intended victim. The statute does not address whether the victim in a felony-murder case must be innocent. The statute simply states that capital murder is the “killing of a human being without authority of law by any means or in any manner” when committed, regardless of intent, by a person engaged in one of several enumerated felonies. Robbery is one of the enumerated felonies. The jury found that Grant killed the victim during the commission of a robbery. Thus, this argument is without merit. Issue 2: Jury instruction Grant argues that the jury received an improper jury instruction on capital murder, because it confused the elements of murder and capital murder. The jury instructions, when read together, properly instructed the jury as to the elements of capital murder and as to what the jury was required to find in order to convict Grant. Issue 3: Expert testimony Grant argues that the trial court erred in not allowing his expert to testify as to the first two conclusions related to his investigation of the crime scene. Under M.R.E. 702, expert testimony should be admitted only after a two-pronged inquiry. First, the witness must be qualified as an expert because of the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education he or she possesses. Second, the witness's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact. The trial judge’s ruling prevented the expert from testifying regarding two conclusions. First, he believed that the law enforcement officer’s efforts to secure and process the crime scene were almost nonexistent; consequently, they did not meet the national standards. Second, he believed that the failure to meet these standards led to key items of potentially exculpatory physical evidence not being documented, collected, or tested. The trial judge found this testimony to be irrelevant, but he allowed the witness to testify regarding his other conclusions. Based on M.R.E. 401 and 702, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the testimony. Issue 4: Hearsay Grant argues that the court erred in allowing a witness to testify regarding statements Grant made on the night of the murder. M.R.E. 801(d)(2) provides an exception to the general rule of excluding hearsay evidence when the statement was an admission by party-opponent. Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 5: Habitual offender status Grant argues that his five prior convictions were not properly authenticated before the jury to be admissible against him. The prosecution offered three pen packs prepared by the Mississippi Department of Corrections to show that he had prior felony convictions. The supreme court has held that pen packs are appropriate evidence of prior convictions in order to enhance sentencing. Grant claims that under M.R.E. 902(1)-(4), the pen packs were not sufficiently authenticated and should not have been admitted into evidence. Rule 902 applies to documents that could be considered self-authenticating. Authentication is required under M.R.E. 901. The State called Grant’s probation and parole officer on a prior conviction to authenticate the pen packs. He testified that the prior convictions were part of a file he received on Grant when he became his parole officer. Thus, the judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the pen packs into evidence. Issue 6: Weight of evidence Grant argues that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the testimony of the defense witnesses contradicted the testimony of the State’s witnesses. Considering the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Two witnesses testified that Grant was at the scene of the robbery and murder. One of the robbery victims testified that Grant was the man who robbed the home. Once a case is submitted to the fact finder, any factual disputes are properly resolved by the jury and do not mandate a new trial.


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