Opinion ID: 865375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether there is cumulative error.

Text: ¶42. Thorson raised the issue of cumulative error as to both federal and state law on direct appeal. Thorson, 895 So. 2d at 131-32. This court found the issues to be without merit. The State now contends that the issue is procedurally barred by the doctrine of res judicata pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev. 2000). Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 9939-3(2) (Rev. 2000), a post-conviction relief motion serves the purpose of providing a limited procedure for review of issues that, “in practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.” It stands to reason that post-conviction issues, reviewed for the first time, can be subjected to cumulative-error scrutiny without being barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Therefore, the State’s argument fails. ¶43. In his motion for post-conviction relief, Thorson contends generally that the alleged preceding errors, taken as a whole, deprived him of a fair trial. The standard of review for an appeal from a capital murder conviction and death sentence is that of heightened scrutiny. Balfour v. State, 598 So. 2d 731, 739 (Miss. 1992) (citing Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 750, 756 (Miss. 1986); West v. State, 485 So. 2d 681, 685 (Miss. 1985)). All doubts are to be resolved in favor of the accused because “what may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death.” Id. (quoting Irving v. State, 361 So. 2d 1360, 1363 (Miss. 1978)). See also Fisher v. State, 481 So. 2d 203, 211 (Miss. 1985). ¶44. When it comes to issues of alleged cumulative error, the Court previously has taken note of those capital cases in which the opinions of this Court articulated differing analyses. 24 For example, in McFee v. State, 511 So. 2d 130, 136 (Miss. 1987) (rape conviction and life sentence affirmed), this Court addressed each assignment of error and found none, be it harmless or otherwise, by the trial court. Based on that finding, this Court stated: In sum, McFee contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors was sufficient to prejudice the jury, essentially allowing the State to convict him not of rape, but of murder. Yet, as discussed, neither the introduction of the photographs nor the prosecutor's comments constituted reversible error. As there was no reversible error in any part, so there is no reversible error to the whole. Id. ¶45. In Jenkins v. State, 607 So. 2d 1171, 1183-84 (Miss. 1992) (capital murder conviction and death sentence reversed and remanded), in which this Court found both harmless error and reversible error by the trial court, this Court stated: If reversal were not mandated by the State's discovery violations, we would reverse this matter based upon the accumulated errors of the prosecution. This Court has often ruled that errors in the lower court that do not require reversal standing alone may nonetheless taken cumulatively require reversal. Id. (citing Griffin v. State, 557 So. 2d 542, 552-53 (Miss. 1990)). ¶46. In Manning v. State, 726 So. 2d 1152, 1198 (Miss. 1998) (capital murder convictions and death sentence affirmed), the Court addressed twenty-one assignments of error with subparts, and made numerous findings of no reversible error.” We stated: This Court has held that individual errors, not reversible in themselves, may combine with other errors to make up reversible error. Hansen v. State, 592 So. 2d 114, 142 (Miss. 1991) [n5 ]; Griffin v. State, 557 So. 2d 542, 553 (Miss. 1990). The question under these and other cases is whether the cumulative effect of all errors committed during the trial deprived the defendant of a fundamentally fair and impartial trial. Where there is no reversible error in any part, . . . there is no reversible error to the whole. McFee v. State, 511 So. 2d 130, 136 (Miss. 1987). 25 Manning, 726 So. 2d at 1198. ¶47. This Court reconciled these different views in Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2003) and held: What we wish to clarify here today is that upon appellate review of cases in which we find harmless error or any error which is not specifically found to be reversible in and of itself, we shall have the discretion to determine, on a caseby-case basis, as to whether such error or errors, although not reversible when standing alone, may when considered cumulatively require reversal because of the resulting cumulative prejudicial effect. That having been said, for the reasons herein stated, we find that errors as may appear in the record before us in today's case, are individually harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and when taken cumulatively, the effect of all errors committed during the trial did not deprive Michelle Byrom of a fundamentally fair and impartial trial. We thus affirm Byrom's conviction and sentence. Id. at 846-47. ¶48. After a careful review of the record in the present case, we conclude that the record supports no finding of error or errors, which when considered cumulatively, had any prejudicial effect which deprived Thorson of a fundamentally fair and impartial trial. We thus find this issue to be without merit.