Opinion ID: 1708859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: did the exclusion of evidence of the sentences of the co-indictees at the sentencing phase of the appellant's trial violate his rights?

Text: Prior to trial, the court ordered that the prior criminal records of the other defendants in this case could not be admitted into evidence. Prior to the sentencing phase of the trial, counsel for the defendant moved to be allowed to tell the jury that Jimbo's father, James Stringer, had received the death penalty. The court overruled the motion. While the defendant is given a wide latitude in offering mitigating evidence in a capital punishment case, it must be relevant to the question of whether he should suffer death. Jordan v. State, 464 So.2d 475 (Miss. 1985); Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1976). However, courts are allowed to exclude, as irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the defendant's character, prior record, or the circumstances of his offense. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973, 990, n. 12 (1978). The issue here is whether the sentences of the coindictees were relevant to the issue of whether Jimbo Stringer should suffer death. If they were relevant, they must be considered. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). A similar question was presented in Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss. 1985). There the defendant attempted to introduce evidence that his co-defendants had received life sentence verdicts by other juries. This Court held that evidence to be inadmissible. Each case tried by a separate jury must stand on its own. Otherwise, the jury trial is pointless. Id. at 218. This assignment of error is without merit.