Mitchell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00095-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2012 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Self-defense instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Prior bad act - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prosecutorial misconduct - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. District Attorney: Robert Shuler Smith Case Number: 05-0-684-00 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eddie Mitchell |
JULIE ANN EPPS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Self-defense instruction - Manslaughter instruction - Prior bad act - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prosecutorial misconduct - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Mitchell was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Mitchell argues that the jury instructions on self-defense and manslaughter either individually or cumulatively denied him his constitutional rights to a fair trial, to a properly instructed jury, and to present his theory of defense. A defendant’s entitlement to jury instructions is limited because the court can refuse instructions which incorrectly state the law, are covered elsewhere in the instructions, or where no foundation in evidence exists for such an instruction. Here, the trial court gave two self-defense instructions. Under these instructions, Mitchell argues that the jury was instructed improperly, because the instructions conflict on a material issue – imminent, impending, and present danger – which is not required. The issue of self-defense is to be determined by the jury. The jury was presented with all the facts, both Mitchell’s account as well as the other witnesses’ accounts. In other words, the jury heard from Mitchell that he shot a man who was wielding a wrench, and the jury heard from other disinterested witnesses that Mitchell shot an unarmed man. Obviously, it was unpersuaded by Mitchell’s testimony. Mitchell also argues that the trial court’s instruction on murder deprived him of his imperfect self-defense theory, and that it shifted the burden of proof to the defense. The instructions given to the jury regarding Mitchell’s imperfect self-defense theory were adequate, and the burden of proof was not shifted to the defense. The instructions clearly required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mitchell was guilty of murder. Mitchell also challenges his murder instruction on the grounds that the “but for an instant” language was inappropriate. In Young v. State, 891 So. 2d 813, 820 (Miss. 2005), the Court found no error with the same instruction. Issue 2: Prior bad act Mitchell admits that defense counsel failed to object to evidence of a past physical altercation. However, he argues that his fundamental right to a fair trial was violated because the court admitted evidence of his past physical altercation with another individual where he worked. Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible as long as the requirements of the Rules of Evidence are met. On cross-examination of Mitchell, the prosecution elicited testimony that he had engaged in a past physical altercation with a previous employee. The comment to M.R.E. 404(b) provides that “[t]hese past acts admitted into evidence may be ones for which the person in question was either convicted or not convicted.” Therefore, Mitchell’s mere assertion of a violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial is insufficient. Because no objections were made, the trial court could not pass judgment, and therefore, cannot be in error on a ruling never made. Issue 3: Prosecutorial misconduct Mitchell argues that his fundamental right to a fair trial was violated by prosecutorial misconduct. Mitchell alleges that the State erred when it referred to his past physical altercation with another person during closing arguments; misstated the evidence and the law; and asked improper questions during the cross-examination of Mitchell’s character witness. The references made to the past physical altercation were proper because those references were made after Mitchell had placed his character in issue. Mitchell’s argument that the State misstated the evidence is exaggerated. The State attempted to impeach Mitchell’s testimony that he had seen the victim with a gun the day before the shooting. Impeaching a witness with the witness’s own sworn statement is not a misstatement of the evidence, but basic trial tactics. With regard to his argument concerning the State’s improper questions during the cross-examination of Mitchell’s character witness, one question was presented to one witness, with no objection from the defense so as to allow the trial court an opportunity to obviate the impropriety of it unlike the case of Craft v. State, 254 Miss. 413, 181 So. 2d 140 (1965), in which the Court held that it is improper to ask a guilt-assuming question of a character witness testifying as to the defendant’s reputation in the community. In Craft, the error had been preserved for appeal. Moreover, based upon the record, the outcome of Mitchell’s trial would have not been different had it not been for this error. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims typically are reserved for post-conviction relief, since those claims generally rely on evidence outside the appellate record. Mitchell’s contentions stem from his trial counsel’s failure to object. In some instances, the decision to object or not to object is a strategic determination of the trial attorney. So as not to speculate, the Court will leave the question of ineffective assistance of counsel to be resolved another day. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
