Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00837-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-02-2007 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Impeachment - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - Authentication of letter - M.R.E. 901(b)(1) - M.R.E. 1003 - Admission of statement - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, P.J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: Conviction of Murder and Sentence of Life Imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 05-0-0009 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Bradley Brown |
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS
WILLIAM R. LABARRE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 - Impeachment - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - Authentication of letter - M.R.E. 901(b)(1) - M.R.E. 1003 - Admission of statement - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Brown was convicted of deliberate-design murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Impeachment Brown argues that he was denied his right to fully impeach a witness on his relationship as an informant with the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department. Where the State conceals impeaching material in its possession, it is incumbent on the State to set the record straight. Here, no impeaching material was concealed - the defense was fully aware that the witness had cooperated with the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department well in advance of trial. Moreover, his status as a confidential informant to the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department is irrelevant under M.R.E. 401 and 402. The Hinds County Sheriff’s Department had no involvement with this case. Issue 2: Authentication of letter Brown argues that the court committed error in admitting the letter Brown allegedly wrote to a witness while in prison, because the letter presented at trial was not properly authenticated and was not the original. The witness testified that, after the trustee delivered the letter from Brown to him, Brown acknowledged that he wrote the letter. Accordingly, the letter was sufficiently authenticated under M.R.E. 901(b)(1). The witness stated on the stand that the letter presented in court was an exact duplicate of the original, which was in his attorney’s possession during trial. The defense offered no reason why it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original, and the letter was sufficiently authenticated as noted above. Therefore, the court properly admitted the letter under M.R.E. 1003. Issue 3: Admission of statement Brown argues that the court erred in admitting testimony from a detective which was a back door effort to place before the jury the fact that Brown remained silent. Volunteered and unprompted statements are admissible, so long as they are not the result of questioning by officers after a defendant has exercised the right to remain silent. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the detective to testify to Brown’s spontaneous, uncoerced statement. Issue 4: Admission of evidence Brown argues that the court erred by admitting into evidence the gas tank found in the vicinity of the crime scene, as it was not relevant. Because the defense never objected to introduction of the gas tank on the basis that the trial court did not perform a Rule 403 balancing inquiry, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Brown argues that the State failed to adduce evidence sufficient to satisfy the deliberate-design element. Deliberate design connotes an intent to kill and may be inferred through the intentional use of any instrument which, based on its manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury. The forensic pathologist testified that, based on the autopsy and his report prepared incident thereto, the victim sustained multiple blows to the head, chest, abdomen and back. Dr. Hayne further testified that the amount of force necessary to produce the victim’s injuries was unlikely to have been inflicted without an object and most likely was made by contact with a blunt object. Thus, based on the testimony and evidence presented, the State produced enough evidence for a jury to find a “deliberate design” beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
