James v. State
| Docket Number: | 96-CT-01058-SCT Linked Case(s): 96-CT-01058-SCT ; 96-KA-01058-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-08-2005 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Juror’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information - M.R.E. 606(b) - Motion for rehearing - M.R.A.P. 40 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. 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: 07-15-1996 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: CAPITAL MURDER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS NATURAL LIFE District Attorney: CONO CARANNA Case Number: 9501119 |
|
| Note: | The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/Conv9512.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dayon James a/k/a Dayon Hasan James, Sr. a/k/a Dayon Hasan-Nevada James |
JOSEPH P. HUDSON, JAMES DONALD EVANS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Juror’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information - M.R.E. 606(b) - Motion for rehearing - M.R.A.P. 40 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dayon James was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. James appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The State of Mississippi filed a motion for rehearing. The Court of Appeals denied the State’s motion for rehearing, withdrew the opinion, and substituted its modified opinion. The Court of Appeals found that a hearing was required to determine whether jurors were exposed to extraneous information and remanded the case to the trial court. The State and James each filed petitions for writ of certiorari, which were denied. On remand the trial court conducted a hearing and ruled that the verdict should not be impeached. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment and denied James’ motion for rehearing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Juror’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information It is absolutely imperative that the jury be unbiased, impartial, and not swayed by the consideration of improper, inadmissible information. To inquire into juror verdicts pursuant to M.R.E. 606(b), the trial court and opposing counsel must be made aware of any potential juror misconduct when this evidence is manifested. Next it must be determined if an investigation is warranted. In order for the duty to investigate to arise, the party contending there is misconduct must make a threshold showing that there was in fact an improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information. When the threshold showing is made, the trial court should conduct a post-trial hearing. Once it is determined that the communication was made and what the contents were, the court is then to decide whether it is reasonably possible this communication altered the verdict. It would be inappropriate, and in violation of M.R.E. 606(b), for any juror to be questioned with regard to whether or not the extraneous information actually altered his verdict. If it is reasonably possible that the communication altered the verdict, then a new trial must be ordered. In this case, the required hearing was finally conducted four years and ten months after the trial. One juror could not be located. All of the jurors, who could be located, stated that they could not remember certain details. James argues that the failure to fully reconvene the jury was reversible error. James had a right to examine the missing juror to determine whether it is reasonably possible that the communication altered his verdict. Since the trial court was unable to locate the missing juror, it should have granted James’ motion for a new trial. James also argues that the passage of time made reconvening the jury impracticable and made a new trial necessary. The passage of time was unfairly prejudicial to James and violated his due process rights. The record shows that one of the jurors was informed, during lunch recess, that James was accused of killing another child. Many members of the venire discussed the allegations regarding a second child while they were waiting in a separate courtroom. At this time one male juror was informed of the allegations regarding the second child. At no point following these exposures to extraneous information were the jurors asked again if they had knowledge of the case, or if they could set aside that knowledge and be fair and impartial. The fact that, after almost five years, these jurors did not remember exactly what was said or who said it, does not lessen the fact that they did discuss the allegations regarding the second child. It is reasonably possible this communication altered the verdict. In addition, the trial court erred when it refused to allow the attorneys to examine the jurors during the hearing. No provision prevents a lawyer from talking to a juror or securing affidavits from jurors to the effect that an outside influence was brought to bear. Pursuant to case law and M.R.E. 606(b), the attorneys should have been allowed to question the jurors or the trial court should have asked additional questions submitted by the attorneys. Issue 2: Motion for rehearing James argues that when the Court of Appeals substituted its modified opinion, it in fact issued a new opinion and he should have been allowed to file a motion for rehearing. The only change in the modified opinion was the conclusion. The holdings of the Court of Appeals regarding all of James’ assignments of error remained unchanged. Accordingly, the deadline to seek rehearing of those holdings was April 25, 2000. Although James responded to the State’s motion for rehearing, he failed to timely file his own motion. M.R.A.P. 40 does not require clarification. Because James failed to timely file a motion for rehearing following the Court of Appeals’s April 11, 2000 opinion, all of the remaining issues are procedurally barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
