Branch v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01769-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01769-COA ; 2010-CT-01769-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim’s prior bad acts - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 805 - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Witness tampering - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-05-2010 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2009-0061-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Austin Branch a/k/a Austin Branch |
LOUIS F. COLEMAN
ROBERT GEOFFREY PARRISH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY 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: | Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim’s prior bad acts - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 805 - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Witness tampering - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Branch was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Branch argues that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. At trial, the State provided evidence that Branch and the victim were involved in a verbal and physical altercation resulting in tension between the men that lasted the remainder of the evening in question. The State further showed that Branch fatally shot the victim in the back of the head. The State’s forensic expert testified that after examining the evidence, she concluded the bullet entered the victim’s head in a perpendicular fashion, or a straight line, thereby negating Branch’s claim that the victim ducked, and Branch provided no rebuttal expert. Branch also claims he was under duress at the time of the killing and he believed that the victim intended to harm him and his reaction to the victim was justified. The jury was shown evidence of Branch’s self-defense theory. However, this evidence was contradicted by proof regarding the location and trajectory of the bullet wound to the back of the victim’s head. Issue 2: Victim’s prior bad acts Branch argues the circuit court erred by not allowing the introduction of evidence about the victim’s prior bad acts. Specifically, Branch attempted to call a witness to testify regarding certain statements another person made to the witness concerning statements the victim made to the other person. M.R.E. 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and M.R.E. 805 holds that hearsay within hearsay, or double hearsay, may not be introduced unless each of the combined statements is subject to an exception to the prohibition against hearsay. Branch fails to assert a hearsay exception applicable to any of the statements sought to be introduced. Branch also claims the circuit court prohibited the introduction of evidence of the victim’s past alleged threats and acts of violence as allowed by M.R.E. 404(a)(2). However, Branch has failed to note specifically how the circuit court denied him the opportunity to present evidence that either he exhibited a character of peacefulness or that the victim was the aggressor. Issue 3: Witness tampering Branch argues that the circuit court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after learning that a witness, who was present in the courtroom during Branch’s testimony, discussed the testimony with another witness who had already testified but was available for recall. It is well settled that when anything transpires during the trial that would tend to prejudice the rights of the defendant, he cannot wait but must ask the trial court for a mistrial upon the happening of such occurrence when the same is of such nature as would entitle him to a mistrial. Here, Branch’s defense counsel did not request a mistrial. Branch also argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a new trial in which he sought to offer a forensic pathologist as an expert to rebut the State’s forensic pathologist’s conclusions concerning the trajectory of the bullet that killed the victim. If Branch wished to rebut the State’s forensic pathologist, Branch had every opportunity to present his expert for the circuit court’s consideration as a rebuttal expert during the trial. A post-trial motion was not the proper vehicle for objecting to and rebutting the State’s expert’s testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
