Chatman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00031-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00031-COA ; 2005-CT-00031-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-25-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved heart murder - Murder instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony - Closing argument - Section 47-5-139 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2004 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: CONVICTION OF DEPRAVED HEART MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT District Attorney: KEITH MILLER Case Number: CR2002-10,769 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lebarron Emon Chatman |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JACOB RAY |
|
|
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 - Murder instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony - Closing argument - Section 47-5-139 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lebarron Chatman was found guilty of depraved heart murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Murder instruction Chatman was indicted for deliberate design murder. He argues that by allowing the State to present a jury instruction on depraved heart murder, his preparation for his defense was compromised. Although the structure of section 97-3-19(1)(a) and (b) appears to create two distinct categories of murder, Mississippi case law has established that deliberate design murder and depraved heart murder have coalesced into one. Therefore, Chatman’s defense was not prejudiced by the court’s granting of the depraved heart murder instruction. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Chatman argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Although Chatman claimed that he did not intend to shoot anyone, he did shoot into a home where people were present, which is a textbook example of depraved heart murder. Testimony from both Chatman and a witness supports the jury’s verdict. Issue 3: Expert testimony Chatman argues that the court erred in allowing an expert witness to exceed the scope of his expertise. The expert based his opinion that the victim was in an upright position leaning forward when he was shot on the pattern of the gunshot wounds on his chest. Forensic pathologists may testify about wounds of the deceased. Issue 4: Closing argument Chatman argues that the prosecutor made an improper statement during closing arguments. In determining whether a prosecutor’s statements warrant a reversal, the court must determine whether the statements created an unjust prejudice against the accused resulting in a decision influenced by prejudice. Although defense counsel’s second objection to the State’s back door reference to Chatman as a gang member should have been sustained, this error was harmless. The jury had ample evidence to support their verdict without the necessity of finding that the prosecutor’s improper comment swayed their ultimate decision. Issue 5: Section 47-5-139 Chatman argues that section 47-5-139 violates his equal protection rights, because it impermissibly discriminates based on age because an inmate who is fifty years or older at the time he is sentenced to life imprisonment must only serve fifteen years before he is eligible to petition the court for early release, whereas Chatman, who was twenty-five years old at the time he was sentenced to life imprisonment, must serve forty years before he will be eligible for conditional release. An equal protection argument based on section 47-5-139(1)(a) is not ripe for review on direct appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
