Jordan v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01177-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-01177-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-02-2008 Opinion Author: GRAVES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved heart murder - Voir dire - Biased jury - Sufficiency of evidence - In-court identification - Right to counsel - Warrantless search - Defective indictment - Prosecutorial misconduct - Prior statements of witnesses - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Photographs - Hearsay - M.R.E. 901 - Statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A) - Photographic lineup - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., DIAZ, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH, AND LAMAR, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): WALLER, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2007 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 11,606 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MONTRELL JORDAN |
BILL WALLER, SR. |
|
|
| 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: | Depraved heart murder - Voir dire - Biased jury - Sufficiency of evidence - In-court identification - Right to counsel - Warrantless search - Defective indictment - Prosecutorial misconduct - Prior statements of witnesses - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Photographs - Hearsay - M.R.E. 901 - Statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A) - Photographic lineup - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Montrell Jordan was convicted of depraved heart murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voir dire Jordan argues that his constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated because the court, the prosecution, and defense counsel at trial failed to voir dire the jury regarding their prior knowledge of the case from community discussion and the media. To the extent that Jordan is raising a claim regarding venue, defense counsel never moved for a change of venue, nor did the trial court rule on this issue. Therefore, this claim is procedurally barred. A jury selection procedure is proper if it gives the defendant a fair opportunity to ask questions of individual jurors which may enable the defendant to determine his right to challenge that juror. The trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding jury selection. The judge questioned jurors about their ability to be fair and impartial before impaneling the jury, and there is no indication that defense counsel was restricted during jury selection. Issue 2: Biased jury Jordan argues that he was denied his right to a fair trial because four of the jurors that were impaneled were unable to fairly and impartially consider the evidence. If a juror takes an oath that he or she can be fair and impartial in fulfilling the duties of a juror and the trial court is satisfied by that oath, then he or she may serve on the jury despite a preconceived opinion as to guilt or innocence of the accused. In this case, voir dire was conducted in which the venire was asked whether or not they could be fair and impartial, and whether or not they could give Jordan the presumption of innocence. The venire was asked whether or not they or their relatives were friends of Jordan or his relatives. Moreover, Jordan’s appellate counsel cites no authority in support of his contention that these four individuals should not have been permitted to sit as jurors. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Jordan argues that he was never identified as the shooter of the victim, and therefore could not have been convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. A witness testified the shooter’s vehicle was a “light brown Suburban.” The witness testified that he had stepped in front of the Suburban, in an attempt to prevent the shooter from fleeing the scene. However, he said that the Suburban drove around him, and that the shooter grinned at him as he fled the scene. Later, the witness identified Jordan in a photographic lineup. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Issue 4: In-court identification Jordan argues that the trial court erred in allowing six witnesses to make in-court identifications of Jordan. Because Jordan did not object to the in-court identification by any witness, this issue is not preserved for appeal. Issue 5: Right to counsel Jordan argues that his constitutional right to counsel was violated when he was interrogated despite having requested counsel and refused to sign a waiver-of-rights form. The trial court determines whether a statement was coerced or given after a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of rights. The judge may admit a statement if the totality of the circumstances indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was freely given. Here, the trial court applied the proper legal standards and found that, after being advised of his Miranda rights, Jordan made voluntary statements to the officers that were in no way a product of threats, coercion, or promises. Issue 6: Warrantless search As a general rule, warrantless searches of private property are per se unreasonable. However, there are exceptions, such as the automobile exception. When determining whether or not a search is supported by probable cause, a judge must consider the totality of the circumstances and use his or her best judgment. Here, there was testimony from several witnesses that the shooter left the scene in Jordan’s car, which police officers found parked at Jordan’s home shortly after the incident. This constitutes substantial evidence in support of a finding that probable cause existed for a valid, warrantless search of Jordan’s automobile. Issue 7: Defective indictment Jordan argues that the indictment erroneously charged him with depraved heart murder instead of manslaughter. It is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that a prosecutor is afforded prosecutorial discretion over what charge to bring in any criminal trial. Jordan also argues that the indictment was fatally flawed because it did not include all the statutory language in the depraved murder statute. An indictment is only required to have a clear and concise statement of the elements of the crime the defendant is charged with. Here, the indictment generally tracked the language of the statute and referenced section 97-3-19(1)(b) such that Jordan was on notice of the charge against him. Issue 8: Prosecutorial misconduct Jordan argues that comments made by the prosecution during opening statement and closing arguments require a reversal of his conviction. Defense counsel only objected once and this objection was made in regard to a comment not challenged by Jordan on appeal. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 9: Prior statements of witnesses Jordan argues that the prosecution used prior statements of witnesses on direct examination throughout each witness’ testimony in order to bolster their testimony. This issue is not properly before the Court pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) since counsel for Jordan fails to cite to the record to support this argument, fails to identify specific examples from the record, and fails to cite any authority. Issue 10: Photographs Jordan argues that it was error for the trial judge to admit photographs of the victim. As long as a photograph has an evidentiary purpose, it may be admitted despite its potential to affect the emotions of jurors. Here, the two photographs were admitted during the testimony of the pathology expert and had both evidentiary and probative value because they were used to identify the victim, as well as to support the expert’s testimony regarding the cause of death. Issue 11: Hearsay Jordan argues that the testimony of a pawnshop owner concerning Jordan’s purchase of a gun was inadmissible hearsay. The witness was questioned about documents related to Jordan’s purchase of a gun. As to Jordan’s challenge of the authenticity of the documents, the witness’s testimony was sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims, which is required by M.R.E. 901. The witness was familiar with the document, and as the federal firearms holder, he was responsible for maintaining that particular document. Issue 12: Statement Jordan argues that it was improper hearsay testimony for a witness to read from the interview transcript of Jordan’s statement. Under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A), a statement made by a defendant is a party-opponent admission, which qualifies as nonhearsay. Issue 13: Photographic lineup Jordan argues that the photographic lineup was highly prejudicial and requires reversal, because he was the only person wearing civilian clothing. Of the six individuals pictured in the photographic lineup, one is clearly wearing a black and white jumpsuit and one is wearing an orange jumpsuit. The other four individuals pictured appear to be wearing civilian clothing. Therefore, there is no merit to his argument. Jordan also argues that it was hearsay for a witness to testify about who identified him at the lineup since those witnesses were available to testify themselves. Under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C), a statement concerning an identification of someone after perceiving them is not hearsay if the declarant is subject to cross-examination. Here, both of the witnesses testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination regarding this identification procedure. Jordan also objects that Trace Return documents were admitted without proper authentication. M.R.E. 901 is satisfied when there is evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document is what the proponent claims it is. The testimony of a witness that it was the document he received from the ATF in response to his “ATF gun trace” request for Montrell Jordan, paired with the information on the face of the document, was evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document was what the prosecution claimed. Issue 14: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jordan argues that he was denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel at trial, because trial counsel made nineteen errors. Jordan’s appellate counsel offers no citations to the record, no citations to authority to support his contentions, and no analysis. Accordingly, Jordan has failed to meet the test to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
