Opinion ID: 1836662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether flowers was denied his fundamental and constitutional right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the matters addressed above.

Text: ¶ 103. In his final assignment of error, Flowers asks this Court to reverse his capital murder conviction and sentence of death based upon the cumulative impact of the errors at his trial. The State argues all errors have been refuted with substantial authority; therefore, [w]here there is no reversible error in any part, .... there is no reversible error to the whole. Doss v. State, 709 So.2d 369, 401 (Miss.1996) (quoting McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987)). The State also contends that if this Court were to find that errors exist, there are no errors substantial enough to warrant reversal. A criminal defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair trial. McGilberry v. State, 741 So.2d at 924 (citing Sand v. State, 467 So.2d 907, 911 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 104. This Court has reviewed this case with heightened scrutiny and has found that the previously cited errors alone are sufficient to warrant reversal. Thus, when considered together, these errors also have such a cumulative effect as to require reversal. The cumulative effect of all of these errors is clearly the most substantial reason for this Court's reversal of this case. This Court, therefore, finds merit to Flowers's argument on cumulative error. ¶ 105. The State had more than ample evidence with which to try its case against Flowers. It is the duty of the State to provide each defendant with a fair trial, not to engage in tactics which mirror prosecution overkill. This Court, more than 100 years ago, laid out a simple roadmap for the prosecution of criminal cases: The fair way is the safe way, and the safe way is the best way in every criminal prosecution. The history of criminal jurisprudence and practice demonstrates, generally, that if everyone prosecuted for crime were fairly and fully conceded all to which he is entitled, and if all doubtful advantages to the state were declined, there would be secured as many convictions of the guilty, and such convictions would be succeeded by few or no reversals. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1215 (Miss.1985) (citing Hill v. State, 72 Miss. 527, 534, 17 So. 375, 377 (1895)). ¶ 106. Notwithstanding the State's position that the fact that this was a circumstantial evidence case required the presentation of extensive evidence to the jury not just on Derrick Stewart, but also on the other three victims as well, the prosecution went far beyond the realm of admissible evidence in this case in order to improperly enhance the likelihood of a conviction of Flowers for the capital murder of Stewart. Had the prosecution only heeded the 1895 admonition of this Court in Hill, and the long-standing decisions of this Court regarding admissibility of evidence, it would have greatly increased its chances of having not only a conviction and sentence, but also an affirmed conviction and sentence.