Opinion ID: 1944998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the prosecution's failure to preserve all evidence deny Brown due process of law?

Text: ¶ 41. Brown claims that because the State did not introduce it at trial, the State failed to preserve the nine millimeter pistol allegedly used to kill Newell. Brown argues that while Mississippi Crime Lab results concerning a nine millimeter handgun were introduced at trial, it is unclear as to where this tested weapon originated. Brown also alleges that the chain of custody forms do not show the State ever possessing, or currently possessing, such a weapon. As with several of his other arguments, Brown failed to raise this issue at trial or on direct appeal. Accordingly, this issue is barred by Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-39-21(1). ¶ 42. Also, without waiving any applicable procedural bar, this claim is substantively without merit. The gun at issue was tested by the Mississippi Crime Lab on July 30, 1999. Crime Lab Records, submitted by Brown, show that this gun, labeled Exhibit 10, is described as a 9 mm Lorcin, Model L, Serial number L069071. This gun was taken from Brown upon his June, 1999, arrest. Furthermore, the chain of custody forms do show that what was tested by the Crime Lab was taken directly from Brown. Subsequently, the record shows that the State did in fact preserve the weapon. Therefore, this claim is without merit. IX. Was Brown denied his rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution and Mississippi Law due to the cumulative effect of the errors at his capital trial? ¶ 43. Brown claims the aggregate effect of the variety of allegedly prejudicial errors in his case require reversal. Brown argues that the Court must review the aggregate of errors committed during the course of his trial and sentencing, and afford him relief. Despite the argument made by Brown, all of his post-conviction claims are procedurally barred either through waiver or res judicata. Moreover, Brown is even barred from alleging cumulative error of these barred claims by Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-39-21(1). Without waiving any applicable procedural bar, Brown has simply failed to show that any error was committed during the course of his trial or during the sentencing phase. Therefore, Brown's assertion as to issue nine is without merit.