Shaw v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-KA-00137-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00137-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-04-2005
Opinion Author: Graves, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder - Defense theory - Chain of custody - Evidence of flight - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, 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: 08-07-2003
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: Conviction of Capital Murder and Sentence of Life Imprisonment, Without Parole, in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
District Attorney: FAYE PETERSON
Case Number: 02-0-022WSY

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William L. Shaw a/k/a Will Shaw




JOE N. TATUM



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Defense theory - Chain of custody - Evidence of flight - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: William Shaw was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Shaw appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Defense theory Shaw argues that the court erred by denying him the opportunity to offer evidence concerning his theory of the case, i.e., that another person killed the victim. However, Shaw does not dispute that the proffered testimony was hearsay. All evidence that is proposed by either side to further its theory, hypothesis, or argument, must first comply with the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. The exclusion of hearsay, even if it has some connection to the defendant’s theory, is entirely proper. Issue 2: Chain of custody Over Shaw’s objections, the court admitted into evidence the bullet which was purportedly taken from a victim’s knee, because the State never established a proper chain of custody. Shaw claims that no person who had any connection to the hospital where the bullet was extracted was called to authenticate the projectile. Proof of the chain of custody is intended to satisfy the factfinder of the identify and validity of the evidence. Without doubts being raised, a break in the chain does not bar introduction. Shaw has not shown any reasonable inference of likely tampering with or substitution of evidence. The victim testified that he fled the crime scene and then sought treatment at C.M.M.C. The investigator testified that he arrived at C.M.M.C., requested the “evidence” from the victim, and was given the bullet. Considering these facts, there is no doubt that the projectile is what it purports to be. Further, Shaw has failed to demonstrate a reasonable inference of likely tampering or substitution of evidence. Issue 3: Evidence of flight Following his initial arrest, Shaw attempted to escape from the lawful custody of the Jackson Police Department. Shaw argues that the court erred by allowing evidence of his escape. A defendant’s flight is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt but is inadmissible where there is an independent reason for the flight. Evidence of flight or escape is admissible as an exception to M.R.E. 404(b) in order to show guilty knowledge but must be filtered through M.R.E. 403. Here, the judge erred in finding that evidence of Shaw’s flight was admissible because Shaw in fact possessed an independent reason for fleeing: he was attempting to escape from lawful confinement. Though the State offered evidence of Shaw’s flight, it did not offer an instruction on flight. While it was error to allow the flight testimony, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of Shaw’s flight pales in comparison to more direct evidence of his guilt. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Shaw argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of capital murder, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the victim’s death occurred during the commission of a robbery. Shaw’s argument hangs on the fact that the robbery occurred immediately after the murder. Because the time between the murder and the robbery formed a continuous chain of events, the intent of the statute was complied with and accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court