Barron v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-01422-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CT-01422-SCT ; 2011-KA-01422-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-04-2013 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(1) - M.R.E. 803(2) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A) - Impeachment testimony - M.R.E. 607 - Rebuttal testimony - Character evidence - Jury instruction - Objectionable statements Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Dissent Joined By : Ishee and James, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, 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: 03-10-2011 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Alexander C. Martin Case Number: 2010-0121CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Justin Barron |
JAMES D. SHANNON
KATHRYN LINDSEY WHITE |
||
| 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 - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(1) - M.R.E. 803(2) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A) - Impeachment testimony - M.R.E. 607 - Rebuttal testimony - Character evidence - Jury instruction - Objectionable statements |
| Summary of the Facts: | Justin Barron was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Barron argues that the evidence proves at most that he was guilty of manslaughter because his actions show no premeditation or malice. From the evidence presented, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Barron guilty of murder. Although Barron did not testify on his own behalf, his state of mind could be reasonably inferred from his actions and statements to the police. An officer testified that Barron did not know if his mother was on the couch when he shot his stepfather; Barron admitted to him that neither he nor his mother was in danger that night; Barron admitted he could have handled the situation differently; and Barron previously threatened his stepfather with a gun after he pushed Barron’s mother. There was also testimony that Barron’s mother told several people that she was walking toward the door when Barron shot his stepfather. There was no evidence or testimony presented showing that Barron was acting in the heat of passion when he killed the victim. The jury was instructed on deliberate-design murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide but found the evidence supported a murder conviction. The jury clearly weighed any conflicts in the evidence in the State’s favor. Issue 2: Hearsay Barron argues that certain statements made by witnesses were hearsay and should have been excluded. M.R.E. 803(1) states that a present sense impression is “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter.” M.R.E. 803(2) states that an excited utterance is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The record suggests that Barron’s mother was still under the excitement of the event at the time the statements were made to the witnesses, and the court did not err in admitting the statements under the excited-utterance exception. During the State’s rebuttal, a witness testified about a conversation she had with Barron’s mother the day after the murder. Although the court admitted the testimony as prior inconsistent statements under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A), the testimony was merely impeachment testimony and admissible under M.R.E. 607. Issue 3: Rebuttal testimony Barron argues that rebuttal testimony by several witnesses was hearsay and should have been excluded. However, the statements were admissible as prior inconsistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). Barron also argues the trial court should have sua sponte granted a limiting instruction regarding this testimony. However, the trial court was not required to give a limiting instruction sua sponte; rather, the burden was on Barron to request the instruction. Issue 4: Character evidence Barron argues the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce evidence concerning prior instances of domestic violence committed by his stepfather. Barron failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal since he failed to proffer the content of the excluded testimony at trial. Issue 5: Jury instruction Barron argues the language in one of the State’s jury instructions concerning deliberate design and malice aforethought is covered in the other jury instructions. Since the first sentence of the instruction is a correct statement of law, the trial court did not err in overruling Barron’s objection to the instruction. Issue 6: Objectionable statements Barron argues the guilty verdict was based upon innuendo and conjecture and refers to the State’s cross-examination of the 911 director who received a call about the shooting. The State asked him whether Barron’s mother ever said she was assaulted by her husband or was injured in any way. The witness answered in the negative to these questions. Although it is prejudicial error for questions on cross-examination to contain insinuations and intimations of conduct for which there is no basis in fact, the State was asking questions for legitimate reasons – it was trying to prove its theory of the case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
