Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Tippah County, Mississippi, fifty-fouryear-old Roger Green was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes involving D.W., Green's ten-year-old stepdaughter. Following denial of Green's "Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative For a New Trial," Green filed this appeal. Before the Supreme Court, Green argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of other sexual offenses through the testimony of four other minor girls whom he allegedly inappropriately touched. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges against him. Finding no error from trial nor an abuse of discretion by the trial court, the Supreme Court affirmed Green's conviction.

Defendant Shawn States was found guilty of capital murder for killing two people while committing armed robbery. Defendant raised three arguments on appeal: (1) the prosecution discriminated based on race and gender in its peremptory strikes; (2) the trial court failed to grant circumstantial-evidence instructions; and (3) the trial court improperly granted the prosecution a "flight" instruction. Because the Supreme Court found no reversible error, Defendant's conviction was affirmed.

In early 2011, Defendant Jonathan Havard was convicted by a jury in George County Circuit Court for the deliberate-design murder of his girlfriend, Joy Hodges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant requested his conviction and sentence be overturned, or, in the alternative, reversed and remanded for a new trial. Appellate counsel filed a "Lindsey"1 brief certifying to the Supreme Court there were no appealable issues in the record. Believing otherwise, Defendant filed a brief pro se assigning error to both the trial court and defense counsel. The alleged errors include violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, his Fifth Amendment right to refrain from testifying, inadequate jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and failure to grant a change in venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed and found the allegations of error to be lacking in merit. Therefore, the Court denied Defendant's requested relief and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

In 1992, Defendant Jeffrey Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming, among other things, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. Based on the evidence produced by Defendant's new counsel (evidence that was available to but never discovered or produced by his trial counsel), the Court reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief and remanded the case for a new sentencing trial.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address whether in a driving-under-the-influence trial, the admission of intoxilyzer calibration records, in lieu of the live testimony of the person who calibrated the Clause contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finding no constitutional violation, the Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Madison County Circuit Court: "[the are nontestimonial in nature. Therefore, [Defendant's] Confrontation-Clause rights were not violated."

In 2006, Defendant Ladennis Graham pled guilty to simple possession of approximately twelve grams of cocaine. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to serve sixteen years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with fifteen years to be suspended upon the successful completion of twelve months of house arrest, four years of supervised post-release supervision and completion of a community service program. While Defendant was on house arrest, MDOC determined he violated the conditions of his suspended sentence when he was arrested at his brother's house during the execution of a search warrant, which turned up a number of guns and narcotics. Defendant was required to serve the remainder of his sixteen-year sentence as an inmate. Defendant then filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Defendant's sentence was illegally vague and indeterminate, and remanded the case for revocation of Defendant's sentence if the circuit court or State chose to initiate such a proceeding. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the circuit court’s ruling that it did not have proper jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion for post-conviction collateral relief. However, it was improper for the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of Defendant's motion without the circuit court doing so first, as the circuit-court had exclusive, original jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated; the circuit court judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

A jury in DeSoto County found Defendant Jeremy Rogers guilty of statutory rape, sexual battery, and fondling of his twelve-year-old stepdaughter, Mary. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was denied a fair trial by introduction of extensive prior-bad-acts evidence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no merit to the issues Defendant raised on appeal after a review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Tadise Seales was convicted of grand larceny following a jury trial in the Neshoba County Circuit Court. Defendant appealed his conviction, asserting that the trial court erred: (1) by not suppressing his confession; and, (2) in denying his motion for a directed verdict. "Finding no merit to either averment," The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.

In 1994, Defendant Joseph Patrick Brown (a.k.a. Peanut Brown) was convicted of capital murder for shooting a convenience-store clerk to death on August 8, 1992, during the commission of an armed robbery. Defendant was sentenced to death by lethal injection. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court. On March 17, 1998, Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief, which the Supreme Court granted in part, for the sole purpose of determining whether Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an independent psychological evaluation of Defendant for use as mitigation evidence. A special judge appointed to hear the matter denied Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, and Defendant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for discovery, as he failed to show "good cause" for his request. Furthermore, Defendant did not demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective in not introducing, as mitigation, a report of Defendant's psychological evaluation or in further investigating Defendant's psychological state. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief.

Defendant Jeffrey Havard was found guilty of capital murder (murder during the commission of sexual battery) of six-month-old child. The jury also found that Defendant's sentence should be death, and the Adams County Circuit Court imposed the death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. His motion for rehearing was subsequently denied, as was his motion for post-conviction relief filed in 2007. Defendant sought habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; however, that case was stayed pending the outcome of his second motion for post-conviction relief before the Mississippi Supreme Court. Finding no merit in Defendant's successive motion for post-conviction relief, the Court denied his successive petition.