Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00989-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00989-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder, Armed Robbery & Arson - Opinion testimony - M.R.E. 701 - Limitation on cross-examination - Closing argument - Photograph Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., and Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-09-2003 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: COUNT I, MURDER: SENTENCED TO LIFE; COUNT II, ARMED ROBBERY: SENTENCED TO LIFE; COUNT III, ARSON: SENTENCED TO THREE (3) YEARS ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SAID SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY Case Number: 2002-0243 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DeAndre C. Davis |
ALLAN D. SHACKELFORD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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, Armed Robbery & Arson - Opinion testimony - M.R.E. 701 - Limitation on cross-examination - Closing argument - Photograph |
| Summary of the Facts: | DeAndre Davis was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and arson and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Opinion testimony Davis argues that the court erred in admitting the opinion testimony of the primary investigator in the case and one of the State's primary witnesses, on the grounds that the investigator was not qualified as an expert on DNA. In accordance with M.R.E. 701, if the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and are helpful to the clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Although he was not an expert on DNA, the investigator testified that he was trained in retrieving DNA. Thus, he was obviously qualified to determine whether or not DNA was likely to be present. He did not have to be an expert in analyzing DNA to know whether or not DNA was present on objects found at a crime scene. In addition, the district attorney was entitled to elaborate on the matter in rebuttal since the investigator was first questioned about DNA by the defense attorney during cross-examination. Issue 2: Cross-examination Davis argues that the court improperly restricted the cross-examination of two witnesses. Trial courts have the discretionary power to limit repetitive cross-examination so as to provide for the orderly presentation of evidence and the elimination of needless waste of time. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defense to continue questioning one of the witnesses. With regard to the other witness, the jury was not deprived of the information Davis now argues was improperly restricted since defense elicited the information from the witness before the State objected. Issue 3: Closing argument Davis argues that the district attorney made a personal plea to the jury for conviction. In closing argument, counsel is afforded wide latitude. Here, the prosecutor did not overstep his bounds when he asked the jury not to let the defendant get away with the crime with which he was charged. Issue 4: Photograph Davis argues that a pre-death photograph of the victim had no relevance to any issue in the case. The fact that a photograph of the deceased might arouse the emotions of jurors does not by itself render it inadmissible so long as introduction of the photograph serves some legitimate, evidentiary purpose. The photograph here served the legitimate, evidentiary purpose of identifying the victim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
