Opinion ID: 1809395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: Whether the trial court improperly responded to a question from the jury during the sentencing phase.

Text: ¶ 73. During jury deliberation at the sentencing phase of Havard's trial, the jury sent a note to the trial judge asking the court to define life without parole and whether the law could be changed to allow parole for Havard in the future. With the agreement of defense counsel and the prosecution, the Court returned a response which stated: Life without parole means life in prison without eligibility for parole or early release. It would be up to the legislature to make any future changes of the law. Havard, 928 So.2d at 799. ¶ 74. Just as on direct appeal, Havard now argues that the trial court's response prejudiced the jury by inferring that, if Havard were given a life-without-parole sentence, he could be released in the future. He argues, as before, that the trial court's response to the jury made a life sentence less feasible in the minds of the jurors. Without presenting anything novel to support this claim or a showing of a sudden reversal in the law related to this issue, Havard's claim is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007); see also Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d at 897.