Puckett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2000-DR-01077-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-DR-01077-SCT ; 2000-DR-01077-SCT ; 2000-DR-01077-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-27-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Impartial jury - Section 13-5-1 - Daubert standards - Testimony by victim’s children - Post-Miranda silence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Aggravating factors - Avoiding arrest - Disproportionate sentence - Cumulative errors - Access to counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-07-1996 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: LEAVE TO SEEK POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, DENIED District Attorney: E. Lindsey Carter Case Number: 18729 |
|
| Note: | Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Larry Matthew Puckett |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ROBERT RYAN
LOUWLYNN VANZETTA WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR. |
|
|
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: | Death penalty post-conviction relief - Impartial jury - Section 13-5-1 - Daubert standards - Testimony by victim’s children - Post-Miranda silence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Aggravating factors - Avoiding arrest - Disproportionate sentence - Cumulative errors - Access to counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Puckett was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, his case was remanded for a Batson hearing. The trial court denied all relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Puckett has now filed a petition for post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Impartial jury Puckett argues that he was denied his right to an impartial jury. He first argues that one juror could not comprehend English. However, it is clear from the record that both parties explored the juror’s abilities to read, write, and comprehend and that she indicated that she could read and write as required by section 13-5-1. Puckett also argues that the judge should have dismissed this juror, sua sponte, upon learning that she did not complete the jury information questionnaire on her own. Despite the fact that the juror stated her daughter filled out the Jury Information Questionnaire, a person who meets the other qualifications and can read and write only a few words is qualified as a juror. Puckett also argues that jury members consumed alcohol and played cards with members of law enforcement some of whom testified during the course of the trial. However, Puckett has not asserted that the jurors were intoxicated or that they were separated and does not present evidence that the jurors discussed the case or that the jurors were subjected to outside influence. Puckett argues that he did not receive a fair trial because jury members were aware of the circumstances surrounding the death of Bailiff Ladner's husband, Bruce Ladner, who was a highway patrolman. However, he has offered no proof that any juror had knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the death of Bailiff Ladner's husband or that such knowledge had a prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict. Issue 2: Daubert standards Puckett argues that the court erred in not applying the standards established in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), in determining whether Dr. Michael West's, D.D.S., testimony should have been allowed. The issue of whether Dr. West should have been permitted to testify as an expert witness in the field of wound patterns was raised and discussed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that even if it had been error to allow Dr. West to testify as a wound pattern expert, his testimony could not have been prejudicial and harmful as Puckett himself confirmed everything Dr. West stated during his own testimony. Issue 3: Testimony by victim’s children Puckett argues that he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because the judge permitted the testimony of the victim's children. Although Puckett was capable of raising this issue on direct appeal, he did not. In addition, the testimony of the boys corroborated portions of another witness's testimony. Issue 4: Post-Miranda silence Puckett argues that the prosecution erred during cross-examination by improperly inquiring into the defendant's post-Miranda silence. Puckett raised this issue on direct appeal. His attempt to raise this issue again in his motion for post-conviction relief is procedurally barred as res judicata. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Puckett argues that his counsel failed to present a meaningful defense. However, Puckett does not indicate who else should have been presented as a defense witness during the guilt phase nor does he assert that defense counsel was deficient in his cross-examination of the state's witnesses. Puckett argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to strike the juror who did not personally complete her juror questionnaire. As discussed previously, Puckett was not denied a fundamental right, and it cannot be maintained that Puckett's counsel was deficient for not moving to have her stricken from the jury. Puckett also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to voir dire the jury to determine whether members of the venire had any bias or prejudice regarding adultery, fornication and/or underage sex. However, Puckett was on trial for capital murder during the course of sexual battery, not while engaged in the acts of adultery or fornication. Further, there was no question of underage sex because Puckett was eighteen at the time of the crime and the victim was twenty-eight. Puckett also argues that his counsel's performance was deficient because he failed to request and send evidence samples for independent testing. However, he fails to demonstrate what sample or samples should have been tested, what the independent testing would have revealed, or that the testing that was performed was inaccurate or somehow defective. Puckett argues that he was denied effective counsel at the sentencing phase because none of his classmates, friends or other relatives were called to testify. The record indicates that defense counsel called six witnesses to testify on Puckett's behalf during sentencing. The affidavit and unsworn statements relied upon by Puckett present nothing more than what would have amounted to cumulative character evidence already presented by other witnesses, had these people been presented to testify. Puckett argues that his counsel should have secured the resources from the trial court necessary to hire an independent pathologist to review the evidence or the findings of Dr. Hayne. However, there was never a dispute about the victim's injuries or the manner in which she died, short of Puckett's contention that he was not the one who killed her. Puckett has not demonstrated the need for an independent pathologist. Puckett also argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to object during several instances at trial. However, Puckett has failed to prove that he was prejudiced. Puckett's defense counsel filed a motion seeking to obtain grand jury evidence and testimony. The court denied the motion, and Puckett argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to cite two cases, which Puckett asserts would have resulted in the motion being granted. However, the record shows that the defense had in its possession all prior testimonies, reports and written statements by these witnesses. Puckett also argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to an officer's testimony regarding a custom painted tag displayed in the window of Puckett's truck. However, Puckett makes no suggestion as to what his counsel should have done differently other than to object to the testimony, and it is clear from the record that his counsel objected at the first hint of any statement regarding the tag. Puckett argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel told the jury in his opening statement that they would hear evidence of a sloppy police investigation, yet failed to present evidence of sloppy police work at trial. However, the transcript belies Puckett's assertion that counsel told the jury that they would hear evidence regarding a sloppy police investigation. Puckett also argues that his attorney should have sought to procure a blood splatter expert. However, his attorney did not fail to use the evidence presented at trial regarding the blood splatter at the crime scene and the absence of the victim's blood on Puckett's coveralls. It is difficult to imagine what a blood splatter expert could have added to this case. Issue 6: Aggravating factors Puckett argues that his indictment is unconstitutional for failure to include and specify the aggravating factors used to sentence him to death. However, the case of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 58 (2002) only found that juries must find aggravating factors. Under this state's statutory scheme and in Puckett's case, the jury found the aggravating circumstances. Issue 7: Avoiding arrest Puckett argues that there was no evidence to support the aggravating factor of avoiding arrest. This claim is res judicata since it was decided on direct appeal. Puckett also argues that the court failed to instruct the jury on what constitutes avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or affecting an escape from custody. However, no limiting instruction is needed for the avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance. Issue 8: Disproportionate sentence Puckett argues that his sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. The issue was considered on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata at the post-conviction level. Issue 9: Cumulative errors Puckett argues that the cumulative effect of errors committed at trial denied him a fair trial. In capital cases, although no error, standing alone, requires reversal, the aggregate effect of various errors may create an atmosphere of bias, passion and prejudice that they effectively deny the defendant a fundamentally fair trial. Because there were no individual errors which required reversal, there is no aggregate collection of minor errors that would, as a whole, mandate a reversal of either Puckett's conviction or his sentence. Issue 10: Access to counsel Puckett argues that he was denied access to defense counsel during a critical stage of his trial. The Federal Constitution does not compel every trial judge to allow the defendant to consult with his lawyer while his testimony is in progress if the judge decides that there is good reason to interrupt the trial for a few minutes. Here, the recess taken by the court was brief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
