Case Title: Gray v. State

Citation: 351 So. 2d 1342

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1977-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
351 So. 2d 1342 (1977) Jimmy Lee GRAY v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 50159. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 16, 1977. *1344 Louis Fondren, Jr., Pascagoula, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before the Court En Banc. SUGG, Justice, for the Court. Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Circuit Court of Jackson County. We reverse and remand for a new trial. This is the first death penalty verdict we have considered since Jackson v. State, 337 So. 2d 1242 (Miss. 1976) which was tried in two stages as required by Jackson, the first to determine guilt, the second to determine punishment. Defendant assigns twenty-seven errors and in his fourteenth assignment of error he attacks the constitutionality of the statute under which he was indicted. This assignment of error is stated in the following language: Defendant was indicted under section 97-3-19(2) Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 1977) which reads as follows: Defendant's main argument is that the language contained in subparagraph (e), "When done with or without any design to effect death," is so vague that it is constitutionally deficient. This argument overlooks the other provisions of the statute under which he was indicted. The statute requires, (1) that a person kill a human being without authority of law, (2) while such person is engaged in the commission of the crime of rape, burglary, kidnapping, arson *1345 or robbery, or in any attempt to commit such felonies. The statute is not vague and simply defines the crime of capital murder as the killing of a human being without authority of law when engaged in the commission of the crime of kidnapping and the other felonies enumerated therein. We believe that the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute was to save the lives of victims of crimes. If the perpetrators of the crime of rape, burglary, kidnapping, arson or robbery know there is a possibility they will suffer the death penalty for killing their victims, such knowledge may, and probably will, deter such persons from taking the life of the victim of the crime. We perceive no constitutional infirmity because the statute clearly defines the elements of the crime and the indictment charged each element set forth in the statute. Three errors occurred during the guilt stage of the trial which require reversal. The first error was the trial court refused to permit defendant to argue his case to the jury. During the argument at the guilt stage of his trial defendant requested permission to "make a statement to the jury." In effect, defendant was requesting the right to argue his own case and his request was erroneously denied. Mississippi Constitution Article 3, section 26 (1890) provides in part: The refusal to permit defendant to argue his case is in direct violation of the above constitutional provision and requires reversal. The second error was permitting the state to show that defendant was on parole which was simply another way of showing that he had been convicted of another crime. The defendant did not testify at the first stage of his trial so evidence that defendant was on parole was not admissible for the purpose of impeaching his testimony under section 13-1-13 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). It is well settled in this state that proof of a crime distinct from that alleged in an indictment is not admissible against an accused. There are certain recognized exceptions to the rule. Proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so connected as to constitute one transaction, where it is necessary to identify the defendant, where it is material to prove motive and there is an apparent relation or connection between the act proposed to be proved and that charged, where the accusation involves a series of criminal acts which must be proved to make out the offense, or where it is necessary to prove scienter or guilty knowledge. See, Smith v. State, 223 So. 2d 657 (Miss. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1030, 90 S. Ct. 1274, 25 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1970); Cummings v. State, 219 So. 2d 673 (Miss. 1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 942, 90 S. Ct. 954, 25 L. Ed. 2d 122 (1970). We have numerous cases on this point, but the fact that defendant was on parole does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions. It was therefore error to permit the state to prove that the defendant was on parole at the guilt stage of the trial. A prior conviction "of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person" is admissible at the second stage of a trial for a capital crime as an aggravating circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining punishment. Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 548, § 5(b) (1977). The third error was the testimony of an officer who was permitted to state that he asked the defendant if he had ever taken the little girl who was the victim in this crime and a little boy under a bridge at Bartlett Street. Initially an objection to the testimony was overruled but later sustained; however, the officer further testified that defendant stated he had never taken the children under the bridge but found them there while walking in the area. The officer stated that, at this time, he determined the defendant should be taken to the police station for questioning. This evidence, together with the evidence that the defendant was on parole was especially damaging and deprived defendant of a fair trial. The evidence should have been confined *1346 solely to the question of his guilt or innocence of the crime with which he was charged. The only purpose for introducing this evidence was to prejudice the jury by inferring that defendant was a child molester. At the punishment stage of the hearing the court required the defendant to proceed before the state. This was error because the state has the burden to prove, not only the guilt of the defendant, but also to prove aggravating circumstances as set forth in Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 458 (1977). This is error which requires reversal of the punishment stage of the trial. Further in the punishment stage the court limited the argument of defendant's counsel to twelve minutes. This was clearly an abuse of discretion because this stage of the trial is for the purpose of determining whether defendant will live or die and a defendant should be given ample time to fully argue this important question. The court also limited the content of the argument of defendant's counsel. The trial judge should not interfere with argument unless counsel clearly and conclusively exceeds the legitimate field of the argument. In the case of Nelms & Blum Co. v. Fink, 159 Miss. 372, 131 So. 817 (1930) this Court stated, with reference to argument of counsel, the following: Defendant also argues that it was error for the court to grant Instruction No. 4[1] for the state. This instruction is proper in a death penalty case because the jury should be informed that death penalty cases are tried in two stages. The court also granted defendant's instruction[2] pertaining to lesser included crimes. During the closing argument for the state the following occurred: Defendant argues that the statement of the trial judge and the statement of the district attorney effectively negated the effect of his instruction on lesser included offenses. We would not reverse if this were the only error in the records; however, the district attorney, when defendant obtains an instruction as to lesser included offenses, should not couch his argument, and the court should not make its ruling, in such terms as to negate the effect of defendant's lesser included offense instruction. Defendant argues that the court erred by overruling his motion to quash his psychiatric examinations as being insufficient. Two psychiatric examinations were performed on the defendant, the first by Dr. W.D. Bridges, a psychiatrist on the staff of the Jackson County Singing River Hospital, the second by the staff at the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield. The only evidence produced by defendant on the motion to quash was his testimony that the psychiatric examination by Dr. Bridges lasted approximately twenty minutes *1348 and that he was examined three or four times at Whitfield with each examination lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Defendant relies on Hill v. State, 339 So. 2d 1382 (Miss. 1976) as authority for his contention that his psychiatric examinations were insufficient. In Hill the first psychiatrist who examined Hill recommended further psychiatric examination. Because of that fact, we ordered further psychiatric examination of defendant in Hill. Unlike Hill, in this case, there was no recommendation for further psychiatric examination so no error was committed by the court when it did not order further psychiatric examination. Of course, under his plea of not guilty, defendant was entitled to present the defense of insanity. McLeod v. State, 317 So. 2d 389 (Miss. 1975). However, the defendant did not present any evidence of insanity on his motion to suppress or at either stage of his trial. Defendant also contends that the court erred by not allowing tapes of his statements given to the police to be admitted as evidence on his motion to suppress. On the motion to suppress it was developed that defendant was given his Miranda warnings before statements were taken from him and he charges that the tapes should have been admitted in evidence for the purpose of the motion only. The colloquy surrounding this assignment of error shows that the state tendered the tapes to the defendant but defendant merely requested the court to have them marked for identification. No error resulted because the court complied with defendant's request and permitted the tapes to be marked for identification. Defendant assigns as error the failure to give the following instruction: The court did not err in refusing the instruction as submitted because intent to kill and murder a victim is not a necessary element in the crime of capital murder when the defendant kills his victim in the commission of the crime of kidnapping or in an attempt to commit the crime of kidnapping. Defendant contends that the trial judge erred when he defined reasonable doubt in an oral instruction to the jury before it was questioned for cause. Defendant did not brief this question but argued it orally. Before the jury was questioned for cause by the court and counsel for the state and the defendant, the court made a lengthy statement explaining to the prospective jurors the procedure that would be followed and in the course of this explanation gave the jury some instructions on the law that applied to the case. Among these instructions was a definition of reasonable doubt. An instruction defining reasonable doubt is not proper. See Pittman v. State, 350 So. 2d 67 (Miss. 1977) and cases cited therein. Although some explanation to prospective jurors, before they are questioned for cause, is necessary to inform them of the charge against the defendant and the procedure that will be followed in the trial, judges should not attempt to give any instructions about the law pertaining to the *1349 case at this time. Instructions are to be given in writing at the conclusion of the testimony and before argument by counsel. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it identified the instructions to the jury as instructions given by the court, instructions given for the state, and instructions given for the defendant. In Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975) we held that, in addition to the written instructions requested by the attorneys for the litigants, the trial judge may initiate and give appropriate instructions in order that the jury may be fully instructed as to the law in each case. In Newell we stated: Following our decision in Newell the circuit judges of the state adopted Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules for the Circuit Courts of Mississippi. Rule 28 provides that all instructions shall not be identified other than by a letter prefix. Trial judges should instruct the jury as to the law of each case by reading the instructions to the jury before the argument of the attorneys and identifying all instructions as the instructions of the court. Failure to follow this procedure was not reversible error under the facts of this case, but to avoid the possibility of reversal, trial judges should follow the procedure in Newell, supra, rather than experimenting with other procedures. While not assigned as error, we deem it advisable to comment on the form of the verdict of the jury at the second stage of the trial which is a separate sentencing proceeding where the jury determines whether the defendant will live or die. The verdict of the jury was: Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 458, § 3 (1977) deals with the conduct of the sentencing proceedings and provides: It will be observed that the statute requires a different form of verdict than the one set forth in Jackson v. State, supra. Miss.Gen.Laws Ch. 458 (1977) was enacted after our decision in Jackson, supra, and sets forth aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered by the jury at the punishment stage of a capital case. Juries shall be instructed in accordance with the statute in all trials after April 13, 1977, the effective date of the statute. The other assignments of error have been considered and we find no merit in them. REVERSED AND REMANDED. All Justices concur. [1] S-4 The Court instructs the Jury that this phase of the trial deals only with the question of the guilt or innocence of the Defendant. In the event that you find the Defendant guilty of Capital Murder another hearing will be held to determine whether the Defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. [2] D-5 The Court instructs the jury that if the jury can deduce from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, either from the evidence or lack of evidence, any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the Defendant's guilt of a lesser offense than Capital Murder, then there is a reasonable doubt of his being guilty of Capital Murder, and the jury should return one of the following verdicts: "We, the jury, find the Defendant not guilty of Capital Murder, but we do find the Defendant guilty of Murder, in which event it will be the duty of the Court to sentence the Defendant to life imprisonment.," OR, "We, the jury, find the Defendant not guilty of Capital Murder, but we do find the Defendant guilty of Kidnapping, in which case you, the jury, may sentence the Defendant to life imprisonment or, if you cannot agree upon his punishment, it is the duty of the Court to sentence him as provided by law.": OR, "We, the jury, find the Defendant not guilty of Capital Murder, but we do find the Defendant guilty of Manslaughter, in which case the Court shall sentence him as provided by law."