Parker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-01158-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-KA-01158-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-06-2013 Opinion Author: Randolph, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Admission of photographs - Weight of evidence - Cruel and unusual punishment - Juvenile offenders - Section 97-3-21 - Section 47-7-3(1)(h) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Lamar, Pierce and Coleman, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Kitchens, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Dickinson, P.J., Chandler and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2011 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of murder, and was sentenced to serve the remainder of his "natural life" in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Alexander C. Martin Case Number: 2011-0035CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lester Lavon Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Levon Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Lavon Parker |
OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER:
MOLLIE MARIE MCMILLIN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Admission of photographs - Weight of evidence - Cruel and unusual punishment - Juvenile offenders - Section 97-3-21 - Section 47-7-3(1)(h) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lester Parker Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to serve the remainder of his “natural life” in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of photographs Parker argues that photographs presented to the jury acted to inflame the passions of the jury and were unnecessary. As long as a photograph has probative value and its introduction serves a meaningful evidentiary purpose, it may still be admissible despite being gruesome, grisly, unpleasant, or even inflammatory. A photograph has a meaningful evidentiary purpose when it aids in describing the circumstances of the killing, describes the location of the body or cause of death, or supplements or clarifies witness testimony. Exhibit S-9 provided a general picture of the crime scene which both described the location of the body and supplemented or clarified witness testimony. Exhibits S-10 through S-14 were specific photographs of the gunshot wound suffered by the victim. These photographs described the location of the body and supplemented or clarified witness testimony. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing these photographs to be admitted into evidence. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Parker argues that the evidence presented “portrayed a scene of nothing more than a killing in the heat of passion.” Assuming the existence of an immediate and reasonable provocation, the issues regarding heat of passion and immediacy, i.e., whether a sufficient cooling off period has passed between the provocation and the killing so as to negate that the crime occurred in the heat of passion, are questions of fact to be resolved by the jury based upon the specific facts of the case and the conditions or temperament of the defendant. Here, the jury heard testimony from Roberts that, on the afternoon of the murder, Parker acted like “the kid I’ve always known prior to that . . . .” The jury also heard Parker’s own testimony that, upon leaving the Robertses’ home, he already had decided to go home and shoot his grandfather. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Parker’s conviction is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Issue 3: Cruel and unusual punishment In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.’” Miller does not prohibit sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders but “require[s] [the sentencing authority] to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Prior to Miller, our trial courts were not required to hold an individualized sentencing hearing for juveniles before imposing a life sentence. As Parker is pending on direct review, Miller applies. Parker was fifteen at the time of his conviction for murder. He was sentenced under section 97-3-21, which provides that “[e]very person who shall be convicted of murder shall be sentenced by the court to imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary.” Parker argues that a plain reading of the parole statute, section 47-7-3, renders his life sentence “tantamount to life without parole.” If section 47-7-3(1)(h) is enforced, as it presently reads, Parker will not be eligible for parole. The legislative mandates, when read together, are tantamount to life without parole and fail to consider Parker’s youth. Parker’s sentence is vacated and remanded for a hearing where the trial court, as the sentencing authority, is required to consider the Miller factors before determining sentence. After consideration of all circumstances required by Miller, the trial court may sentence Parker, despite his age, to life imprisonment. However, if the trial court should determine, after consideration of all circumstances set forth in Miller, that Parker should be eligible for parole, the court shall enter a sentence of “life imprisonment with eligibility for parole notwithstanding the present provisions of Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3(1)(h).” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
