Havard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-DR-00539-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-DR-00539-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-08-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Exculpatory evidence - Brady violation - Due process - Videotaped statement - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2002 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: Found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death. Case Number: 02-KR-0141J |
|
| Note: | Motion for Relief from Judgment or for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jeffrey Keith Havard |
GRAHAM P. CARNER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA COLONIAS MCGOVERN, 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 - Exculpatory evidence - Brady violation - Due process - Videotaped statement - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffrey Havard was found guilty of capital murder (murder during the commission of sexual battery). He was sentenced to death. Havard’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. His motion for rehearing was subsequently denied, as was his motion for post-conviction relief. Havard is currently seeking habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; however, that case has been stayed pending the outcome of Havard’s second motion for post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exculpatory evidence Prior to trial, the mother of the victim gave a videotaped statement to law enforcement officials. Havard argues that, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the prosecution withheld the videotape at trial despite his trial counsels’ request for all exculpatory evidence. Under the test for determining if a Brady violation has occurred, it is the defendant’s burden to prove: that the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. In its response, the State has provided an affidavit from Havard’s lead trial counsel in which he states that, prior to trial, he did watch the videotaped interview that was conducted the day after the victim’s murder at the Adams County Sheriff’s Office. Corroborating the attorney’s affidavit is the affidavit of the prosecutor. Given the sworn affidavits from Havard’s trial counsel and the prosecutor in his case, there is no merit in Havard’s claim of a Brady violation, because he has not shown that the evidence was suppressed. Issue 2: Due process Havard argues that the State solicited testimony from the victim’s mother at trial that it knew to be false. Havard maintains that her videotaped statement and her trial testimony differed and that the State allowed the disparity to go uncorrected. It is Havard’s contention that the videotaped statement is “newly discovered evidence.” Trial counsel was aware of the videotaped statement and viewed it prior to trial. Therefore, the videotaped statement is not newly discovered evidence. Because the videotaped statement is not newly discovered evidence, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Havard argues that his trial counsel were ineffective by failing to utilize the videotaped statement if the State did disclose or produce it. This issue is procedurally barred because it fails to meet an exception to the time bar and the successive-writ bar. In addition, Havard has failed to present any argument on this matter other than bare assertions. Also, trial counsel’s decision not to use the videotaped statement clearly falls within the realm of trial strategy. Issue 4: Newly discovered evidence Pursuant to a discovery order entered in Havard’s federal habeas corpus proceedings, Dr. Steven Hayne was deposed to explore his opinions regarding sexual battery in Havard’s case. Havard claims that the declaration and deposition of Dr. Hayne demonstrate his innocence of the underlying felony, thus meaning that Havard cannot be guilty of capital murder. In a document with the heading “Declaration of Dr. Steven T. Hayne” signed by Dr. Hayne and submitted in the federal court proceedings, Dr. Hayne stated that “[b]ased upon the autopsy evidence available regarding the death of Chloe Britt, I cannot include or exclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she was sexually assaulted.” He also stated that the contusion found on Chloe’s anus “could have a variety of causes, and is not sufficient in and of itself to determine that a sexual assault occurred.” Dr. Hayne also stated that he found no tearing of Chloe’s rectum, anus, anal sphincter, or perineum. In his deposition, Dr. Hayne acknowledged that, prior to conducting the autopsy of Chloe, he was specifically asked to determine whether a sexual assault had occurred. There is no mention of sexual battery in the Final Report of Autopsy, because Dr. Hayne “could not come to final conclusion as to that.” The issue is whether Havard has newly discovered evidence that would exempt him from the procedural time-bar and the successive-writ bar. The new evidence must be evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, that is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that, if it had been introduced at trial, it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. In this task, Havard fails. First, Dr. Hayne testified at Havard’s trial, and he was subjected to cross-examination. In his recent deposition testimony, Dr. Hayne testified that his deposition testimony was consistent with his trial testimony. Additionally, at his deposition, Dr. Hayne testified that he had seen no new facts that would cause him to change his testimony at trial. There is no indication that the deposition testimony provided by Dr. Hayne was undiscoverable at the time of trial. This issue is procedurally barred by time and as a successive writ. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Havard argues that his attorneys were ineffective because, after failing to secure an independent pathologist, they failed to have any pretrial interaction with Dr. Hayne. Dr. Hayne’s deposition testimony is that he does not remember meeting with Havard’s trial counsel. However, even assuming that Dr. Hayne was not interviewed by Havard’s trial counsel, the remainder of his deposition testimony that Havard seeks to have the Court consider is duplicative of Dr. Lauridson’s report, which was considered and rejected in the original post-conviction proceeding. Furthermore, Havard offers no explanation as to why this information could not have been discovered prior to filing his original motion for post-conviction relief. This issue is procedurally barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
