Brooks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-CT-01826-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01826-SCT ; 2001-KA-01826-COA ; 2001-KA-01826-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-24-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Physical lineup - In-court identification - Double hearsay - M.R.E. 805 - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) - M.R.E. 803(24) - Rap lyrics - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2001 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Brooks was convicted of murder and sentenced to serve life. District Attorney: Dunn Lampton Case Number: 01-179-KB |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found violations of Brook's constitutional rights at the lineup, combined with the impermissible hearsay testimony and the improper admission of gangrelated evidence without proper foundation or M.R.E. 403 analysis, and reversed the judgments of the court of appeals and the circuit court and remanded the case to the circuit court. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Blaine Brooks |
RICHARD M. GOLDWASSER
PAUL McGERALD LUCKETT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Physical lineup - In-court identification - Double hearsay - M.R.E. 805 - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) - M.R.E. 803(24) - Rap lyrics - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Blaine Brooks was convicted of murder and sentenced to serve life in prison. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identification Brooks argues that the in-court identification by a witness was tainted because she had previously identified him at a physical lineup without the presence of counsel after adversarial proceedings against him had begun. A participant in a lineup has a constitutional right to have a lawyer present if the lineup is held after adversarial proceedings had been initiated against him. Adversarial proceedings had certainly commenced against Brooks prior to the lineup. Brooks had signed a document indicating that he did not want to speak to any law enforcement authorities either in Illinois or Mississippi for any investigation. The detective testified that he informed Brooks that he did not have to participate in the lineup, but he also testified that Brooks did not respond and participated in the lineup. The Court of Appeals found this lack of response to be an intelligent waiver. Silence can never be an intelligent waiver where a defendant has invoked the constitutional right to have an attorney present. Therefore, the physical lineup was conducted in violation of Brooks’s constitutional right to counsel, and the officers should not have been permitted to testify that the witness identified Brooks at the physical lineup. With regard to the in-court identification of Brooks, the record supports the State’s argument that the in-court identification was based on observations of Brooks other than the lineup. Therefore, the in-court identification was not error. Issue 2: Hearsay Brooks argues that the court erred in admitting double hearsay by a witness that three days following the murder she was told by Brooks’s mother, who had been told by Brooks, that he (Brooks) committed the crime. Under M.R.E. 805, double hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. The murder occurred on May 13. When Brooks confessed to his mother at her place of employment, he was wearing bloody clothes. It wasn’t until three days later that his mother confided in her half-sister. Because admission of an excited utterance under M.R.E. 803(2) is not allowed when the time frame was more than twenty-four hours, the court abused its discretion in finding the testimony qualified as an excited utterance. On the record before the Court, the testimony also did not meet the requirements of Rule 803(24). The court on remand must hear more testimony prior to ruling on whether the hearsay is admissible under Rule 803(24). Issue 3: Rap lyrics Brooks argues that the court erred in allowing the detective to read “rap” lyrics, presumably written by Brooks extolling murder, to the jury without any prior foundation. Brooks also argues that the court erred in allowing the State to inform the jury that Brooks had been involved in gang activity and that he had a tattoo of the Grim Reaper holding a pitchfork. To be admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), the evidence offered must be relevant to prove a material issue other than the defendant's character and the probative value of the evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect. Here, the court made no attempt on the record to determine whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial harm. Furthermore, based upon the record, the tattoo and gang-related evidence would not have survived a Rule 403 analysis had it been conducted. The lyrics presumably written by the defendant make no mention of gangs. The lyrics discuss murder by use of a gun, not a fork. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
