Opinion ID: 1839020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether introduction of testimony, photographs, victim-impact evidence and argument of an alleged second crime of murder violated frank mackbee's rights under both state law and mississippi constitution, and the eighth and fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution.

Text: The due process clauses of the Mississippi Constitution and of the federal constitution require that a trial be conducted according to established procedures with an adequate opportunity to be heard in defense. The Mississippi Constitution commands that [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. Art. 3 § 14 Miss. Const. See also U.S. Const.Am. XIV. In criminal procedures, due process requires, among other things, that a criminal prosecution be conducted according to established criminal procedures. To establish those procedures this Court has promulgated the Mississippi Rules of Evidence to guide the admission of relevant evidence. Miss.R.Evid. 401, 402. However, even relevant evidence may not be admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Miss. R.Evid. 403. One area in which relevant evidence may be excluded is in the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. Miss.R.Evid. 404(b). However, an exception to the inadmissibility of evidence of other crimes when the purpose of admission is for the purpose of establishing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Miss.R.Evid. 404(b). This recitation of the rules lays the background of the arguments of the defendant and the State as to this assignment of error. The defendant asserts that, even though he was being tried for the single murder of Cicero Montgomery, the State interjected the facts of the murder of David Leon Tyler. David Leon Tyler died from shotgun wounds, while Cicero Montgomery received a blow to the head and died of smoke inhalation. To preclude the introduction of evidence relating to Tyler, defense counsel made a motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the Tyler murder, which motion was overruled. (Vol. IV, T. 409-413). The trial court's ruling was based upon the fact that the events of the common scheme or plan was so intertwined that they could properly be submitted to the jury. Defense counsel noted in the motion in limine that: The evidence in this case, and the makeup of this case, is such that the District Attorney can try his capital murder case against the defendant concerning Cicero Montgomery without ever mentioning the death of Mr. Tyler. Mr. Tyler apparently died from shotgun wounds whereas Mr. Montgomery apparently received a blow to the head and died from some kind of smoke inhalation. Introducing evidence of some other crimes, and especially this other alleged killing or death, in Montgomery's case, again, would be irrelevant, prejudicial and violate due process of law. Id. at 410-411. The trial judge overruled the Motion in Limine holding that the events of these two murders were events of a common scheme or plan and were so intertwined that evidence of both crimes could properly be submitted to the jury. Id. at 409-413. The defense counsel asked and received from the trial judge a continuing objection to the admissibility of this evidence throughout the trial. Id. at 412, 413. This reservation preserves this alleged error for our review on appeal. There were repeated occurrences of the introduction of the evidence of both murders. Prominently displayed were photographs of the two bodies, introduced over defendant's objection. Id. at (Vol. IV, T. 492, 494, 509). During his opening statement, the prosecutor noted that two (2) bodies were found at the scene of the crime. Id. at 418. [A]nd they also discovered that another person was missing. A Mrs. Tyler had called the Sheriff's Department and said that her son was missing ... (Vol. IV., T. 420). This occurred again during trial. (Vol. V., T. 591). Garry Austin, then Criminal Investigator, Mississippi Highway Patrol testified: Q: What were you aware of at that time? [When dispatched to the scene of the crime.] A: That Mr. Montgomery's vehicle had been found in Forrest County burned, and upon examination deputies had found two human bodies in the trunk of the vehicle. Q: At that time was any positive identification made as to the identity of the two bodies in the trunk?       Q: And at that time were you aware if anyone else had been reported as missing? A: Leon Tyler had been reported as missing by his mother to the Lincoln County Sheriff's Department. (Vol. IV, T. 434). Howell Stephens, Criminal Deputy Forrest County Sheriff's Department, testified: Q: After they arrived on the scene was the trunk examined more closely? A: Yes, after they arrived we raised the trunk and determined that there were two bodies  BY MR. ALLEN: Your Honor, I would like to interpose an objection ... BY THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are now trying this case concerning the death of Cicero Montgomery's only and the robbery of Cicero Montgomery only, and no other person. So if it's necessary to present other evidence in order to show with reference to this case, then it may be done; otherwise, it would not be relevant. All right. (Vol. IV. 490) (emphasis added). With regard to the pictures being introduced during Stephens' testimony, Mackbee objected and made an oral argument out of the presence of the jury. The court ruled: Well I think the pictures have probative value that far outweighs any prejudicial effect. They are perhaps to some extent gruesome, but they are, as I understand it, that's the scene the witness saw when the trunk was opened; is that correct? BY STEPHENS: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: All right. BY MR. ALLEN: Your Honor, I don't think there's any question whether or not the body was found in the trunk, it's not an element of the crime, and it obviously is being offered to a jury composed of twelve women for no other reason than to show exactly what it shows, and especially the fact that the intestines sticking out are those of someone we're not even trying here. (Vol. IV. T. 493). Patricia Eddins, State Medical Examiner's Office, testified about her observations during Montgomery's autopsy: Q: [D]id another body accompany that body of Cicero Montgomery? BY MR. ALLEN: Your Honor, for the sake of the record so I don't have to keep interrupting, if I could have a continuing objection to this line of testimony, to any talk about a second body. BY THE COURT: Well, I am going to permit the State to go into this evidence on a limited scale insofar as to show what, if any, the condition was in which the body of Cicero Montgomery was found.       Q: [C]an you identify what is shown in that photograph, M-86 200? A: Yes, sir, this is the body that we autopsied directly following the body of [Montgomery] and, to my knowledge, both of these bodies were transported at the same time to us. (Vol. IV. 569-570). Carl Swan, Rawls Springs Volunteer Fire Department, responded first to the scene of the burning car. He testified as follows: Q: Were you present when the trunk was opened? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what, if anything, did you see inside the trunk? A: There were two bodies discovered inside the trunk. (Vol. IV, 590-591). Finally, Lizzie N. Tyler, mother of the second victim, testified in pertinent part as follows:       Q: Would you tell the ladies of the jury where you saw him [Mackbee] and about what time you saw him. A: Well, I really don't know what time it was, ..., but I know it was in the morning, and he wasn't too far from where I stayed at going down towards his house. Q: Who was he with at that time? A: That's when he got in the car with his uncle. (Vol. IV., T. 658).       Q: Did you go to his [Montgomery's] house or near his house on April 2nd? A: Yes, I went to the little rise that go down, where you come out the main road to go down to his house, I went there. Q: Was his car there? A: No, it wasn't. Q: And why did you go down there? A: Because my son left home at 3:00 o'clock [sic] going down there. Q: And what's your son's name? A: Leon David Tyler.       Q: And what was he going to do down there? A: He was going to help him [Montgomery] finish planting his garden. Q: And how did he go down there? A: On my baby's bike. Q: How old was your son?       A: He was twenty-nine.       Q: What was his mental condition? A: He was retarded. Q: When, after that, did you go down to the Montgomery house? A: No, I never did go down there 'till the next day. [5]       Q: When did you go back again? A: That was 'bout 10:30 or 11:00 o'clock [sic]. Q: What did you do at that time? A: I called the police. (Vol. V, T. 660-662). Frank McCann, Forensic Scientist with Mississippi Crime Laboratory, testified as follows: Q: Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibits S-24, S-25, S-26, and S-27, pictures of the victims in the trunk of the car, and ask if you would to assume that the clothing that you examined came from these two victims. A: This clothing is consistent with those  with the clothing in the two cans that we examined at the laboratory. (Vol. VI, T. 829). In closing argument the prosecutor stated: BY MR. SMITH:       Mrs. Lizzie Tyler, the first witness that was called, told you that the defendant and Cicero Montgomery were from the same neighborhood in Lincoln County, living close together, as does Mrs. Tyler, that she saw on April 2nd and the defendant just before noon; that she saw Cicero Montgomery, between 11:00 and 1:00 and that he was in his car on that day. She also said that about 3:00 her son, David Leon Tyler, rode his sister's bicycle down to Cicero Montgomery's house and that she never saw her son nor Cicero Montgomery again after that day, April 2nd, at 3:00. She said that she went down to Cicero Montgomery's house at 5:00 and that she saw the bicycle in the yard, which would certainly suggest that the young man had gone to the house, but she saw Cicero Montgomery's car missing. She went to the house again at 7:30 ... and again at 11:00 and finally called the police. Now, it was this call that set in motion the investigation of the house that has resulted in such an enormous amount of photographs and evidence that has been presented to you... . (Vol. VI, T. 946-47). There was no objection to this discussion. The prosecutor later re-emphasized Ms. Tyler's testimony that her son was missing, and Mackbee objected to this argument. Id. at Vol. VI 985-986. In another part of his closing argument, the prosecutor stated the following: This is a circumstantial evidence case and Mr. Allen makes a lot about that, that it's circumstantial, that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and he wants you to take that and say that because it's a circumstantial evidence case that the State hasn't met its burden. Well, let me ask you a question, ladies of the jury. Why is this a circumstantial evidence case, why were there no eyewitnesses at the house? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a circumstantial evidence case because the defendant killed the witnesses. Do you realize that? (Vol. VI, T. 975). Mackbee failed to object to this argument.       I submit to you, respectfully, that the person that murdered Cicero Montgomery was known, could have identified him; that is the only reason for Mr. Montgomery's murder. That is because someone knew that Mr. Montgomery could identify them if ever given that opportunity, and when Leon Tyler came down there I submit the same situation was inevitable. Id. at (Vol. VI, 979). Mackbee failed to raise an objection.       Circumstantial evidence is evidence other than an eyewitness identification. Mrs. Tyler was here. She made an in Court [sic] identification of someone that was at her house just briefly on the night of April 2nd, 1986 for a short period of time [speaking of Austin]... . I submit to you that the person that was at the car that was stopped on Highway 42 can be no person other than the man that murdered and robbed Cicero Montgomery. It can't be any other person, it has to be that person, because at that time in the trunk of that car at approximately 4:30, certainly not enough time to drive back to Lincoln County, in the trunk at that time were two  let me rephrase that  was one body, one dead person, and one man that was still alive, that was still breathing, that was not dead. The person that was driving that car  BY MR. ALLEN: [Objection on basis that no testimony was offered to that effect.] BY THE COURT: ..., the jury is entitled to pass upon the evidence, and you will consider the evidence as you remember it to be. Very well. (Vol. VI, T. 986-987).