Flora v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00634-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00634-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-19-2006 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Mistrial - Denial of expert assistance - M.R.E. 901(b)(2) - Exclusion of handwritten statement - Prosecutorial misconduct - Exclusion of handgun - Right to speedy trial - Disclosure of identities - Discovery violation - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J. and Carlson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, J. Dissent Joined By : Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Flora was convicted of murder under the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19 and sentenced to life. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 01-1-463 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Milton Flora, Jr. a/k/a Milton Hayes |
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS, THOMAS M. FORTNER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Mistrial - Denial of expert assistance - M.R.E. 901(b)(2) - Exclusion of handwritten statement - Prosecutorial misconduct - Exclusion of handgun - Right to speedy trial - Disclosure of identities - Discovery violation - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Milton Flora, Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial Flora argues that the court should have granted Flora’s motion for a mistrial based on the jury hearing an improper hearsay comment. When a trial judge sustains an objection to testimony and directs the jury to disregard the statement, it is presumed, unless otherwise shown, that the jury followed the directions of the trial judge to disregard such comment or testimony. Herer, proper action was taken in sustaining Flora’s objection and instructing the jury to disregard the statement, and Flora failed to show the improper testimony was not disregarded or could not have been disregarded by the jury. Issue 2: Denial of expert assistance Flora requested the trial court to order Roger Johnson (Flora’s cousin and codefendant) and Derrick Jones to submit to handwriting exemplars, in order to authenticate two statements allegedly written by Johnson and Jones. The court denied the motion, and Flora argues this was error. Mississippi case law states expert assistance should be granted upon showing of substantial need. Pursuant to M.R.E. 901(b)(2), a witness who in the course of official business or in any other way has acquired by experience a knowledge of a person’s handwriting, may state his opinion as to whether a particular writing was made by such person. There is nothing in the record that indicates Flora ever attempted to have these statements authenticated by locating someone familiar with the handwriting of Johnson or Jones. There is no indication there was a good faith effort to locate anyone who might have been able to authenticate these statements. Instead, Flora immediately asked the State of Mississippi to provide the funds for him to hire an expert. Because there was never an attempt by Flora to authenticate these statements in any other way, Flora has failed to show there was a substantial need for expert assistance. Issue 3: Exclusion of handwritten statement Flora argues that the court erred in excluding the handwritten statement of Roger Johnson. However, there is no indication in the record that Flora ever attempted to put into evidence the statement allegedly written by Johnson. However, even if he had attempted to put the statement into evidence, its exclusion by the trial court would not have been error. The statement which Flora sought to have admitted was not authenticated and thus, could not be admitted into evidence. Issue 4: Prosecutorial misconduct Flora alleges several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The test to determine if an improper argument by a prosecutor requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the prosecuting attorney’s improper argument created unjust prejudice against the accused resulting in a decision influenced by prejudice. Flora argues that improper comments were made by the prosecution during the examination of witnesses and were pervasive throughout the trial. However, timely objections were made by defense counsel, sustained by the trial court, and the jury was instructed to disregard the comments. It cannot be said that individually or cumulatively these comments prejudiced Flora to the point of depriving him of a fair trial. Flora also argues that the court granted a pretrial motion to suppress his statements that were made at the time of his arrest, and the prosecution violated the pretrial order. However, the court specifically, and correctly, ruled that despite his not being given Miranda warnings prior to being asked his name, that Flora gave false names to the police was admissible evidence at trial. Also, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to allow impeachment of Flora with his statement to police, even though he had not been given Miranda warnings prior to making the statement. Flora also argues it was error for the trial court to overrule his motion for mistrial after the prosecution asked him on cross-examination if he had screamed “where’s the money, where’s the money?” when he entered the apartment of Flora’s former girlfriend’s apartment on the night of the murder. The State had every right to question Flora as to whether he said “where’s the money?” and Flora had the right to admit or deny. Flora denied the accusation, and that should have been the end of the matter. When the prosecutor improperly repeated the question several times, the defense objected, and the trial court properly sustained the objection. The attempted impeachment was proper. Flora also argues it was error for the trial court to overrule his objections to improper and prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor on closing rebuttal. The comment simply informed the jury that they were the ones who had the power to convict Flora or to acquit him. It in no way implied that Flora would commit any crimes if acquitted. Flora also argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photograph of his former girlfriend, depicting her appearance on the night of the murder. The photograph challenged by Flora is black and white, and the photocopy contained in the record is not clear. It was admitted for a legitimate purpose, and does not rise to the level of gruesomeness or repetitiveness which requires denial of admission into evidence. Issue 5: Exclusion of handgun Flora argues the trial court erred by prohibiting him from introducing into evidence a chrome .380 handgun that was discovered at the scene of Flora’s arrest, because this deprived him of his right to present his theory of the case. There was never any evidence presented to the trial court that tied the .380 handgun to the murder scene. That it was found underneath Flora does not make it relevant evidence when the murder occurred in another part of the city. Issue 6: Right to speedy trial Flora argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Factors to consider include length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The delay here of more than two years was presumptively prejudicial. Under the facts and circumstances in the record, the reason for the delay factor weighs in favor of Flora. It is undisputed that Flora asserted his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial on several occasions. No proof exists of extraordinary anxiety or of loss of evidence or witnesses. Flora attempts to use “prosecutorial misconduct” in support of his speedy trial claim. This claim is without merit since the reasons given for the State’s continuances were for good cause. Under the totality of the circumstances, Flora’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Flora also alleges a statutory violation of his 270-day right to a speedy trial. While the length of the delay was substantial, and while Flora undisputedly asserted both his statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial, the reasons for the delay were legitimate and good cause was shown. Issue 7: Disclosure of identities Flora argues the trial court denied to him the names and identities of the police officers who were present at his arrest and also denied him the criminal histories of Roger Johnson and Ray Spann. Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is either material to guilt or to punishment. The question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different but for governmental evidentiary suppression which undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Flora fails to show either that the evidence was favorable or that the prosecution even possessed the same. In addition, no proof exists in the record that Flora could not obtain the evidence with reasonable diligence. Also, Flora cannot prove to a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had this evidence been in his possession. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow Flora to discover potentially favorable evidence. Issue 8: Discovery violation During direct examination by the State, Dr. Steven Hayne testified that he drew blood and urine specimens from the body of the victim for toxicological testing by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, and that the testing would show the presence or absence of ethyl alcohol or “drugs of abuse” in the bloodstream. On cross-examination, Flora attempted to ask whether the urine of the victim showed the presence of “drugs of abuse.” Flora argues that the court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to that question. Had Flora not possessed the results of both the ethyl alcohol and “drugs of abuse” reports, his argument would certainly be stronger regarding a possible discovery violation. Flora was, however, in possession of both reports. It is certainly not the State’s duty to enter into evidence all documents in its possession, especially when the person testifying has no knowledge of the contents of an offered or proposed document. Issue 9: Sufficiency of evidence Flora challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Without question, there is ample evidence pointing to Flora’s guilt. Flora admitted to being at the scene of the crime, and he admitted to being in a struggle with the victim. Evidence also exists which places the weapon used to commit the crime in Flora’s possession soon after the crime. Gunshot residue was also found on Flora soon after the crime. In addition, blood of the victim was found on Flora’s clothing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
