Showers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00321-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00321-COA ; 2009-CT-00321-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-01-2011 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Self-defense instruction - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Miranda rights - Admission of video Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Ishee, J. Dissent Joined By : Griffis, J Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2008 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: JAMES T. KITCHENS JR. Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD Case Number: 2007-0721-CRI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tavares Showers |
DENNIS HARMON |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. 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: | Manslaughter - Self-defense instruction - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Miranda rights - Admission of video |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tavares Showers was found guilty of manslaughter. Showers was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Self-defense instruction Showers argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a self-defense jury instruction that referenced the size discrepancy between him and the victim. Where an attacker is much larger than the one attacked, the nature of the assault, though only with fists, might be such as to show that the one being attacked is in danger of great bodily harm and, therefore, justified in the use of a deadly weapon to defend himself. While a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, the court may refuse an instruction that is without foundation in the evidence. During trial, testimony was introduced to establish that the victim was nine inches taller and nearly 100 pounds heavier than Showers, but the record contains no evidence to support Showers’s argument that he was fearful of being harmed by the victim and reacted to protect himself. Since there was no evidence presented to suggest that Showers was fearful of being harmed by the victim because of his size, the granting of a self-defense jury instruction which focused upon that size difference would have been an improper comment upon the evidence by the trial court. Issue 2: Expert testimony Showers argues that Dr. Hayne is not qualified to testify as a forensic pathologist, and even if he is, the trial court improperly limited the voir dire of Dr. Hayne. Dr. Hayne’s testimony as to his medical training and experience within the field exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. There is no suggestion within the record that the testimony was based on unreliable principles and methods or that Dr. Hayne misapplied the principles and methods to the facts of this case. Therefore, Dr. Hayne met the standard for admission of expert testimony under M.R.E. 702. Because Dr. Hayne met the standard for admission of expert testimony, the trial court did not err in admitting his testimony or limiting the voir dire. Issue 3: Miranda rights On the evening of the altercation, Showers was arrested and brought to the police station for questioning. Showers refused to waive his Miranda rights and requested an attorney. The interrogation initially ceased, and the officer left the room. The officer later returned to the room and told Showers that he was not allowed to ask him any questions, but he was willing to listen and take a written statement. As a result, Showers explained to the officer that he had insisted on having a lawyer present because he stabbed the victim in self-defense. Shortly afterwards, the officer allowed both Showers’ mother and aunt, individually, to enter the interrogation room and speak with Showers. Showers repeated the statements he made to the officer. The police never warned Showers or his relatives that the events were being recorded. Showers argues that admitting the videotape into evidence was a violation of his constitutional right to an attorney. Once an accused has expressed a desire for counsel, interrogation must cease unless the accused initiates further communication. Initially, when Showers asserted his right to an attorney, the officer ceased the interrogation. When the officer returned, Showers began to talk about the incident only after the officer initiated the conversation. Even as Showers explained that he reacted to the victim in self-defense, he still expressed his desire for an attorney. Because Showers clearly expressed his right to counsel and the officer initiated further conversation regarding the incident between Showers and the victim, the statements made in response to the officer while in the interrogation room are inadmissible. Therefore, the trial court erred in admitting the videotape that recorded the conversation between the officer and Showers. Showers further argues that the trial court erred in admitting the video footage of Showers’ conversations with his mother and aunt. Even if the goal of the police officers in allowing Showers’ relatives into the interrogation room was to elicit a response from Showers, Mississippi courts have consistently held that questioning by a non-officer should not be regarded as an interrogation. Therefore, the trial court did not error in admitting the video footage of the conversations between Showers and his relatives. Because Showers made the same incriminating statements while talking to his relatives, the admission of the video footage of the conversation between Showers and the officer constitutes harmless error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
