Lenard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00348-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00348-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-13-2011 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder, Kidnapping & Felony child abuse - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(a) & (b) - Hearsay - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) - Statement of plan or intent - M.R.E. 803(3) - Photographs - M.R.E. 403 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Barnes, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-13-2009 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CAPITAL MURDER, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE; COUNT II, KIDNAPPING, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS; AND COUNT III, CHILD ABUSE, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS, ALL TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell Case Number: 2008-0087 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Fred Lenard, Jr. |
GEORGE T. HOLMES
LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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, Kidnapping & Felony child abuse - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(a) & (b) - Hearsay - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) - Statement of plan or intent - M.R.E. 803(3) - Photographs - M.R.E. 403 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fred Lenard Jr. was convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, and felony child abuse. Lenard was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of the parole for murder and to thirty years for each of the other counts. Lenard appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts This issue concerns the testimony of Lester, Lenard’s ex-wife. She testified that a few days after their divorce, Lenard forced his way into her home and strangled her with a piece of wire. The State offered Lester’s testimony to show Lenard’s “identity, motive, and plan” under M.R.E. 404(b), on the theory that the prior attack was similar to the one in which the victim was killed. Lenard argues that the testimony only served to show the jury that Lenard had been violent toward another woman, leading them to conclude that he was more likely to have been violent toward the victim. Lenard argues that the testimony was used for the improper purpose of showing the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith in violation of M.R.E. 404(a). This argument is procedurally barred on appeal. At trial, Lenard did not argue that it was improper character evidence. Issue 2: Hearsay Lenard attacks several admissions of hearsay evidence by the trial court. Under M.R.E. 801(c) and 802, hearsay is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter and is generally not admissible at trial. The trial court allowed statements made by the victim’s son in the hospital shortly after he was found tied up in the woods, the day after his mother’s murder, to be repeated as hearsay by an emergency-room nurse and by the Coahoma County Sheriff, who briefly interviewed the child a short time after he made the statements to the nurse. The testimony was clearly admissible under M.R.E. 803(2) as an excited utterance. Nothing in the record suggests that the son was not still under the excitement of the incident at the time the statements were made. He had witnessed his mother’s murder, been bound, carried into the woods, and left in a ditch overnight. When he was found, the child was observed to be suffering from exposure and injuries from the bindings, and he had little opportunity to recover before giving the statements. He was immediately taken to a hospital in Clarksdale, and all of the statements at issue were made a short time after his arrival there. The statements were spontaneous. Thus, there was no error in their admission. Lenard also argues that the court erred in admitting hearsay statements from the victim through a friend of the victim. M.R.E. 803(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed. The witness testified that the victim told him of her plan or present intent to tell Lenard she was ending their relationship. Rule 803(3) allows statements of plan or intent, and this encompasses relevant statements made by murder victims before their deaths. Issue 3: Photographs Lenard argues that the court erred in admitting various photographs of the victim’s body into evidence. He argues that the photographs are cumulative and overly gruesome. A photograph has meaningful evidentiary purpose when it aids in describing the circumstances of the killing, describes the location of the body or cause of death, or supplements or clarifies witness testimony. In order to exclude any photograph, the trial court would have to find that, pursuant to M.R.E. 403, the probative value of such photograph was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In this case, each of the photographs has some probative value, and it appears that the trial judge carefully considered the threat of unfair prejudice before allowing each photograph into evidence. Thus, there is no error. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Lenard argues that the jury’s verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Lenard’s convictions are not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. There was significant evidence, both circumstantial and direct, of Lenard’s guilt. Lenard’s arguments primarily concern the credibility of witnesses and the resolution of conflicting inferences or testimony. The jury is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
