Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00299-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Weathersby rule - Expert testimony - Plain error - M.R.E. 103(d) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-05-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: MURDER-SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: 2402-2002-310 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Raymond Morris Davis |
MICHAEL W. CROSBY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Weathersby rule - Expert testimony - Plain error - M.R.E. 103(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Davis was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weathersby rule Davis argues that the court erred by not applying the Weathersby rule. The Weathersby rule operates when a defendant is the only eyewitness to a crime. In such an event, the defendant's version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true unless substantially contradicted by a credible witness testifying for the State or by physical facts or facts of common knowledge. A reasonable, hypothetical juror could have been convinced that physical facts contradict Davis's claims that the shooting was in self-defense or accidentally inflicted. The jury also heard evidence that Davis’s version of the events was improbable. The forensic pathologist who testified for the State opined that the wounds would have caused extreme bleeding and pain prohibiting the victim from doing much except writhing on the ground in "pseudoparalysis," rendering prolonged attack impossible. Evidence also suggested that no weapon was within the victim’s reach. Issue 2: Expert testimony Davis argues that the court erred by permitting the pathologist to assert an opinion beyond the scope of his expertise, i.e., he responded affirmatively when asked whether the fourth gunshot wound was deliberate. He relies on the plain error rule of M.R.E. 103(d) as the basis of his appeal. The plain error rule arises only if an error is so fundamental that it generates a miscarriage of justice. Here, the error was not so fundamental that it generated a miscarriage of justice. Although it was error to allow the opinion on this ultimate issue, the error is harmless under the facts of this case. The jury was free to consider the testimony and physical facts and to reach a conclusion by fair inference that Davis acted deliberately, regardless of the expert’s opinion of Davis's intent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
