Sanders, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01295-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved heart murder - Severance of trials Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Easley, Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-27-2003 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found both defendants guilty on all counts, and on March 27, 2003, they were each sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG Case Number: CR02-112 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Torri L. Sanders and Sherry Sue Johnson |
ROBERT SNEED LAHER, LOUIS JULIAN HOLLIDAY, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Severance of trials |
| Summary of the Facts: | Torri Sanders and Sherry Johnson were each convicted of three counts of depraved heart murder. They were sentenced to three consecutive life sentences. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sanders and Johnson argue that the court erred in not severing the case and allowing the defendants to have separate trials. The decision whether to grant a severance depends on whether the severance is necessary to promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The court should consider whether the testimony of one co-defendant tends to exculpate that defendant at the expense of the other defendant and whether the balance of the evidence introduced at trial tends to go more to the guilt of one defendant rather than the other. The State argues that the defendants did not actually offer any exculpatory evidence. Both testified to their own guilt, as well as to the guilt of the other. Each consented to and performed acts that were part of the crime, making them principals acting in concert. Because they aided and abetted each other, neither defendant exculpated herself or inculpated the other. Each defendant’s testimony merely sought to lessen her personal responsibility for the crime. Neither of them denied shoplifting, fleeing the police afterwards, or crashing into the victims’ car. No one was prevented from raising a defense based on the joint trial, and their defenses were not inconsistent with one another. Additionally, both Sanders and Johnson received the same sentence. Johnson argues that the balance of the evidence introduced at trial obviously points more to the guilt of Sanders than Johnson. However, the evidence introduced at trial clearly went equally to the guilt of both defendants. Given the breadth and depth of the evidence against each defendant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the trial. Separate trials would not have altered the outcome of this trial. The defendants also argue the trial court erred by not sua sponte ordering the trial to be severed. The trial court cannot be put in error for failing to sua sponte sever the trial when it was not required to do so even upon a proper motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
