Opinion ID: 1947870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the jury contaminated by dining in the forrest county jail complex and seeing the appellant in prison garb?

Text: During the hearing on his motion for a new trial, the appellant produced only one of three jurors who allegedly saw the appellant dressed in prison garb in the jail complex. This juror, Charles Morris, testified that while being led with the other jurors in single file through the complex to the cafeteria, he looked over his shoulder down a hallway and through an open door and saw the appellant for several seconds sitting at a table, dressed in an orange jumpsuit. Morris further testified that he was not shocked to see the appellant there and assumed he was being kept there. The testimony from this single juror fails to support a presumption that the jury was tainted. In the absence of any evidence or indication that the jury was prejudiced on account of this incident or that the appellant did not receive a fair trial, the motion based on this ground was properly denied. There being no reversible error in these four assignments of error and the proof being overwhelming and without contradiction that the appellant shot and killed Burkett while in the commission of the crime of burglary or attempted burglary, the conviction is hereby affirmed. These six assignments of error have to do with the sentencing phase: II. The trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider only the mitigating circumstance of age. III. Section 99-19-101 is unconstitutional for the following reasons: (a) The burden of proof was impermissibly shifted to the defendant during the sentencing phase. (b) The defendant was unconstitutionally denied a presentencing report. (c) The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. (d) The statute fails to provide adequate guidelines for appellate review. (e) The especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance is vague and overbroad. (f) The State is allowed to present unlimited evidence at the sentencing stage. VII. The trial court erred in admitting photographs of the deceased during the penalty stage of the trial which it had excluded during the guilt phase of the trial. VIII. The trial court erred in overruling a motion for mistrial because of prejudicial and improper closing arguments made by the district attorney during the penalty phase. IX. The jury was required to state in its verdict the specific facts upon which it based its sentence of death. X. The appellant's death sentence should be commuted by this Court to life in prison.