Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-02149-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-02149-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2008 Opinion Author: LAMAR, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Character evidence - Severance of trials - Admission of co-defendant’s statement Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-30-2006 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: Count I: Conviction of robbery by use of a deadly weapon. Appellant received no sentence on Count I, that offense being encompassed in Count II. Count II: Conviction of capital murder and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. This sentence is consecutive to any other sentence and this appellant shall be eligible for parole, but under 47-7-3 MCA, this shall be without parole consideration. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 275-06 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | GREGORY SMITH a/k/a JR. |
BENJAMIN A. SUBER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE B. WOOD |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Character evidence - Severance of trials - Admission of co-defendant’s statement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gregory Smith was found guilty of capital murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Character evidence Smith argues that he was irreparably and unfairly prejudiced by the admission of character evidence of prior bad acts, including prior arrests, charges, bond hearings, and other unrelated crimes. When Smith’s statements were offered into evidence, Smith objected on the grounds of hearsay and the right to confrontation. Smith failed to object on the ground he raises on appeal – improper character evidence. Therefore, Smith waived any argument concerning character evidence when he failed to raise it in the trial court. Issue 2: Severance of trials Smith argues that the trial court committed error by failing to sever the trials of Smith and his co-defendant. Even when a defendant has a right to a separate trial from that of a codefendant, this right can be waived. It is the responsibility of the movant to obtain a ruling from the court on motions and failure to do so constitutes a waiver. There is no record of a ruling by the trial court on Smith’s motion for severance nor any evidence that the motion was noticed for hearing by the defendant. Thus, Smith effectively abandoned the motion and waived this issue for appeal. Issue 3: Admission of co-defendant’s statement Smith argues that the court erred in admitting his co-defendant’s statement. Testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial can be admitted only where the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross examine. The statements made during police interrogation in the present case are unquestionably testimonial and thus would be admissible only if the declarant was unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross examine. Some of the Court’s prior opinions are in conflict as they relate to the admissibility of testimonial statements. To the extent that prior cases allow admission of testimonial statements when found to be reliable under the “indicia of reliability” test in the absence of cross-examination, they are overruled. The trial court in this case attempted to address any confrontational issues by giving a cautionary instruction. A violation of the Confrontation Clause by admission of a codefendant’s out-of-court statement which implicates the defendant in a crime cannot be cured by the granting of a cautionary instruction such as the ones entered in this case. The State argues that in the present case the facts constituting the elements of murder committed during the commission of a robbery were established by overwhelming evidence and through the use of proper means; thus, the error of admitting the co-defendant’s statements was harmless. Outside of the erroneously admitted statements, the only evidence that ties Smith to the crime are the statements Smith made during his interrogation which was presented to the jury through the disc recordings and transcripts of those interrogations. Smith made no effort to suppress his own statements and the only objection made to the introduction of his statement was his joining the co-defendant’s objection on the grounds of hearsay and confrontation. No objection was made which would challenge either the truthfulness, or the voluntariness, or the reliability of Smith’s statements. Smith’s own statements concerning his participation in the robbery and murder of the victim were uncontradicted and unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence in the record was overwhelming and was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and introduction of the co-defendant’s statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
