Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01715-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2010 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Exculpatory evidence - Manslaughter instruction - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial; Motion for a New Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-11-2008 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: Conviction of murder and sentence of life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr. Case Number: 08,0061CRV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jason Davis |
MICHAEL ELIAS WINFIELD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Exculpatory evidence - Manslaughter instruction - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jason Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence At trial, Davis presented only a motion for directed verdict following the State’s case-in-chief, which was overruled. Davis then presented his defense and rested. Davis offered no further motions before judgment. Following his conviction and sentence, Davis filed a “Motion New Trial” regarding only “newly discovered evidence.” Davis’s failure to renew his motion by way of a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence or via a motion for a peremptory instruction constituted a waiver of his present challenge regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. Issue 2: Exculpatory evidence Davis argues that the State intentionally, deliberately and unfairly concealed and withheld exculpatory and material evidence from Davis. To establish a Brady violation a defendant must prove that the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Davis first complains that the State did not provide him with a copy of the surveillance video of the premises. At trial, the parties stipulated that the surveillance video was not relevant, and it was marked only for identification. If the surveillance video is irrelevant, then Davis cannot prove either that it was “favorable” to him or that, had it been disclosed, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Davis also complains about his videotaped statement. The circuit court permitted counsel for Davis to view the videotaped statement after which counsel for Davis acknowledged that any variations between the transcript and videotape were “slight” and not “germane.” As the transcript was not significantly different from the videotaped statement, and the videotaped statement was admitted into evidence by the circuit court, Davis cannot prove that proper disclosure from his perspective would have created a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Issue 3: Manslaughter instruction Davis argues that he was entitled to a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. Davis failed to provide a contemporaneous objection to the absence of a manslaughter instruction. As such, this issue is procedurally barred. Moreover, Davis, after conferring with his attorney, elected to staunchly oppose the manslaughter instruction as part of his trial strategy, after being offered an opportunity to present such an instruction by the circuit court and without opposition from the State. Issue 4: Newly discovered evidence Davis argues that the surveillance video revealed the existence of an additional witness previously unknown to Davis. Newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial if the evidence will probably produce a different result or verdict; further, the proponent must show that the evidence has been discovered since the trial, that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, that it is material to the issue, and that it is not merely cumulative, or impeaching. Here, the surveillance video was available to Davis before trial. Thus, this issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
