Reynolds v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01569-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-14-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Opening statement - Manslaughter instruction - Closing argument - Reference to blood - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2000 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: Reynolds was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to life. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 99-KR-1364-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brenda Louise Reynolds |
PATRICIA F. DUNMORE, DAVID M. READ, CARMEN N. BROOKS,
DEBORAH McDONALD,
BRENDA LOUISE REYNOLDS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Opening statement - Manslaughter instruction - Closing argument - Reference to blood - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Reynolds was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Opening statement Reynolds argues that she was denied a fair trial due to the State’s opening argument. During its opening argument, the State informed the jury that it expected to call an inmate who had been housed with Reynolds as a witness to testify and briefly told what her testimony would show. When the State called this witness to testify, the defense objected and the State subsequently withdrew her as a witness before she testified as to the substance of her conversation with Reynolds. The court then instructed the jury to disregard her testimony and to disregard any reference by the State in its opening statement concerning her expected testimony. The jury responded on the record that they understood the trial court’s instruction. In front of the jury, the defense requested that the court instruct the jury that references about the witness’s testimony in the State’s opening statement should be disregarded by the jury and that the opening statement is not evidence. The court granted the defense’s request. There is a presumption that jurors follow the court’s admonition to disregard the unanticipated, unprovoked incident and decide the case solely upon the evidence presented. Issue 2: Manslaughter instruction Reynolds argues that the court erred in not granting the State’s lesser included offense/manslaughter jury instruction. However, not only did the defense not object to the failure to grant such an instruction, the defense objected that the State requested a lesser-included offense instruction. In addition, based on the evidence presented, a manslaughter instruction was not warranted. Issue 3: Closing argument Reynolds argues that the court erred in allowing the State to make allegedly false and misleading statements in its closing statements. However, the closing statement was in direct response to remarks made by the defense in its closing statement. The defense also argues that the State should not have been allowed to make comments on the good job that the police do in its closing statement to bolster its case. Because the defense did not object, the error, if any, is waived. Issue 4: Blood Reynolds argues that the court erred in allowing the testimony by an officer that a substance appeared to be blood over its objection. The evidence showed that the victim died as a result of the gunshot wound to his chest. The gunshots were made at close range, and the victim’s chest had the impression the gun barrel from being shot at close range. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the officer to find that the substance appeared to be blood. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Reynolds argues that the evidence presented was insufficient in this circumstantial case to warrant her conviction. The jury was instructed that the State must prove Reynolds guilty to its satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The evidence clearly shows that the elements of murder were established in this case. Issue 6: Ineffective assistance of counsel Reynolds argues that her counsel should have filed a motion to suppress the testimony of an inmate with whom she was housed. The defense objected to the testimony as to any conversation with Reynolds, and the State withdrew the witness. Therefore, there was no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel to justify reversal. Reynolds also argues that counsel was ineffective for opposing a manslaughter instruction. There is no adequate showing by Reynolds that the defense counsel’s decision to oppose the manslaughter instruction was not sound trial strategy and therefore prejudiced her case. She also argues that counsel should have objected to the State’s closing argument. However, she fails to show that failure to object to the State’s remark amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel to merit reversal. She also argues that counsel should have objected to an officer’s testifying as to the statement made by Reynolds’ brother to him. Reynolds does not establish that this amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The defense does not show that trial counsel attempted to obtain an impeachment instruction from the court. Also, the officer’s testimony was not the only evidence presented to the jury on which Reynolds could have been convicted. The brother was also called as a witness. Reynolds argues that counsel should have developed the size and style of a pair of shoes found at the victim’s apartment to determine if they belonged to someone else who could have been at the apartment when the victim was shot. No witnesses testified or gave statements that they saw anyone else at the apartment when the victim was shot. Therefore, trial counsel was not deficient in failing to develop this line of investigation. Reynolds argues that counsel failed to require the State to reduce Reynolds’s various statements to writing. However, the defense fails to specify what statement were not reduced to writing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
