Sanders v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-00068-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-10-2006
Opinion Author: Myers, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder & Aggravated assault - Judicial misconduct - Prosecutorial misconduct - Photographs - Identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2004
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry O. Lewis
Disposition: COUNT I - CAPITAL MURDER - SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. COUNT II - CAPITAL MURDER - SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. COUNT III - AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT III SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN COUNTS I AND II ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC.
District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
Case Number: 2003-0083

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Marvin Sinatra Sanders




JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR.



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: Capital murder & Aggravated assault - Judicial misconduct - Prosecutorial misconduct - Photographs - Identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Marvin Sanders was found guilty of two counts of capital murder and one count of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the capital murder charges, and a twenty year sentence for the charge of aggravated assault. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Misconduct Sanders argues that it was judicial misconduct for the court to allow the prosecutor to ask leading questions and prosecutorial misconduct to ask the leading questions. Additionally, he argues that it was judicial misconduct for the court to allow the prosecutor to question a witness on redirect beyond the scope of the direct examination. Sanders also takes issue with comments made by the prosecutor in closing argument. Under the context and circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask leading questions. There is nothing in the trial transcript to indicate that Sanders was prejudiced before the jurors by any judicial or prosecutorial misconduct during this phase of the trial. Issue 2: Photographs Sanders argues that the introduction of four photographs of the crime scene was error because the exhibits were introduced for the sole purpose of evoking sympathetic emotions from the jury. Photographs have evidentiary value where they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti, where they describe the location of the body and cause of death, and where they supplement or clarify witness testimony. All of the pictures introduced into evidence at trial served to clarify the testimony of witnesses, to give the jury a visual depiction of the crime scene, and to show the cause of the victims’ deaths. Issue 3: Identification Sanders argues that the court erred in allowing the sole surviving eyewitness of the shootings to testify regarding her pretrial identification and to make an in-court identification because of alleged inconsistencies in her testimony. When determining whether an identification complies with due process, the court should consider the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; the witness' degree of attention; the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal; the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Here, the witness viewed Sanders during the entire robbery and addressed Sanders by name as she pleaded for her life. Her testimony indicated that she recognized Sanders immediately upon his re-entrance into the store and she acknowledged his presence. This testimony shows that she was paying sufficient attention during the commission of the crimes. Once the victim was able to drive to her brother’s residence and gain his attention for help, she immediately and specifically identified Marvin Sanders, by name, as the assailant and never wavered from this initial identification. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the out-of-court and in-court identifications, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's admission of the identification evidence. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sanders argues that his counsel’s failure to interview a potential alibi witness, failure to have gun powder residue tests performed on Sanders’ clothing, and failure to object to the prosecutor’s use of a nickname for the appellant resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Sanders makes no valid argument of a deficiency in his lawyer’s representation. Decisions to call witnesses, ask certain questions, or make particular objections fall within the purview of the attorney’s trial strategy and cannot give rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The absence of a test for gun powder or nitrate in no way renders the jury verdict invalid. Sanders’ argument concerning his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s use of a nickname for the appellant factually fails. An objection was properly made and subsequently overruled by the trial court.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court