Sanders v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01925-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01925-COA ; 2009-KA-01925-COA ; 2009-CT-01925-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-12-2012 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Circuit court reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Presumption of reasonable fear - Section 97-3-15(3) - Confrontation clause - M.R.E. 803 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, 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: 04-09-2008 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2301-07-012 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Edna Mae Sanders |
BRIAN B. ALEXANDER
WILL BARDWELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND 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 - Presumption of reasonable fear - Section 97-3-15(3) - Confrontation clause - M.R.E. 803 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edna Sanders was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The Court of Appeals reversed her conviction and remanded for a new trial based on the trial court’s error in denying a “no duty to retreat” instruction, and its error in suppressing evidence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Presumption of reasonable fear The Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial judge erred when he denied Sanders’s requested “no duty to retreat” instruction. But in its discussion of that issue, the Court of Appeals quoted from subsection (3) of section 97-3-15, which clearly does not apply in this case. Subsection (3) establishes a presumption of reasonable fear in certain instances of self-defense. Subsection (3), read in its entirety, clearly establishes that the presumption of reasonable fear does not apply when the person against whom defensive force was used was lawfully present. Thus, the Court clarifies that a defendant may not claim the presumption of reasonable fear when the person against whom defensive force was used had a right to be in or was a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling. Issue 2: Confrontation clause Sanders argued before the Court of Appeals that the admission of the victim’s incriminating statements to the first responders violated her Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against her. The Court of Appeals found that the statements were admissible under M.R.E. 803, but failed to address her Confrontation Clause argument. Because the primary purpose of the first responder’s “interrogation” was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency, there is no Sixth Amendment violation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
