Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02328-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-05-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-29-2004 Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: JOYCE IVY CHILES Case Number: 2003-0227 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Antonio Harris |
WHITMAN D. MOUNGER |
||
| 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: | Manslaughter - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antonio Harris was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of testimony Harris argues that the court abused its discretion in failing to exclude a witness's testimony due to a violation of M.R.E. 615, the witness sequestration rule. A witness's failure to comply with a sequestration order does not automatically render the witness's testimony inadmissible. Rather, the decision to exclude the witness's testimony rests within the trial court's sound discretion. Exclusion of the testimony is a serious sanction and appropriate only where probable prejudice would result to the other party. Here, the prospective witness was not in the courtroom during other witness testimony but was closeted with her mother during a break in the mother's testimony. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding not to exclude the witness's testimony, but instead to allow Harris to conduct full-bore cross-examination of the witness. There was no showing that the mother had actually told her daughter anything about her testimony. Harris has not shown prejudice sufficient to render the trial court's ruling an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Harris argues that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the trial to permit a reasonable jury to find that his slaying of the victim was not in necessary self-defense. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to reject Harris's self-defense theory and to find Harris guilty of manslaughter. Two witnesses related that they saw Harris approach the victim, draw his gun, and begin shooting the victim. They testified that Harris, not the victim, was the aggressor. While the physical evidence was somewhat consistent with Harris's version of events, it was also consistent with the testimony of these two witnesses, creating a fact question for the jury. From the fact that Harris shot the victim seven times, a reasonable jury could have found that Harris initially shot the victim in self-defense but at some point his continued shooting became unnecessary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
