Roy v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01658-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01658-SCT ; 2002-CA-01658-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographs - Self-defense instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Dismissal of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2001 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC District Attorney: Keith Miller Case Number: 2000-10-294 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Roy |
DAPHNE L. PATTISON |
||
| 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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographs - Self-defense instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Dismissal of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Christopher Roy was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Roy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Not only does Roy admit to the killing, but his accomplice testified about the conspirators' premeditated design. Issue 2: Photographs Roy argues that photographs of the victim’s exhumed body, particularly a close-up of the mud-covered body, were unduly prejudicial and inflammatory. Photographs have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti; they describe the location of the body and cause of death; or they supplement or clarify witness testimony. Here, the judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the photographs. He conducted a Rule 403 balancing on the record, finding that the photographs did possess probative value, and that such value outweighed any potential prejudice. Issue 3: Self-defense jury instruction Roy argues that the court erred in denying a jury instruction that he offered concerning the right to make a preemptive strike in self-defense when an attack is reasonably anticipated. An appellant bears the burden of presenting a record which is sufficient to undergird his assignments of error. Roy has failed to designate for the record any jury instructions other than the two that were denied even though the judge’s ruling was that the instruction was adequately covered by others. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Roy argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorneys failed to request a change of venue, failed to investigate, failed to call certain defense witnesses, and failed to retain a forensic expert to counter the opinions supplied by the State's pathology expert. To prove his claim, he must show his attorneys’ conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The failure to move for a change of venue will be deemed trial strategy absent extreme circumstances, and such circumstances do not appear in this case. In addition, the nature of counsel's investigation and the calling of witnesses are presumptively strategic decisions. With regard to an expert, while Roy has pointed to two instances in which an expert might have been helpful, he has made no convincing argument that such testimony would have resulted in a different outcome. Issue 5: Dismissal of counsel Roy argues that the court erred in failing to rule on his request to dismiss counsel and appoint new counsel. A movant, even a pro se movant, has the duty to pursue his motion through to hearing and decision. Roy failed to pursue his request to replace his counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
