Adofo Minka v. State of Mississippi
234 So. 3d 353
Miss.2017Background
- Adofo Minka, defense counsel in a felon-in-possession trial, made emotional, accusatory remarks in opening and closing statements suggesting the prosecution and court had "betrayed" the jury and invoking a "bus to Parchman" image.
- The trial judge repeatedly intervened, citing URCCC Rules 3.02 and 10.03, instructing Minka to confine remarks to what the evidence will show and to avoid appeals to emotion or comments about sentencing.
- Minka persisted, argued publicly he was being prevented from telling the truth, and challenged the court’s characterization of his demeanor.
- The State moved for a mistrial, alleging Minka’s conduct sought to provoke a mistrial and prejudiced the State and court. Minka did not oppose the State’s mistrial motion.
- The trial court declared a mistrial, found Minka in direct criminal contempt for willful, unprofessional, and contumacious behavior that disrupted proceedings, fined him $100, and ordered him to pay $1,350 in jury costs.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed de novo (applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for contempt) and affirmed the contempt conviction and monetary sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Minka) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minka’s remarks (e.g., "bus to Parchman") referring to potential punishment were improper | The "bus" comment was rhetorical hyperbole, not a reference to a specific sentence; Marks only bars arguments that refer to a specific potential sentence and should not be applied to defense counsel | Such references (even rhetorical) are improper when they invite jurors to consider punishment; Marks and later authority bar sentencing commentary during the guilt phase by either side | Court held the comment was improper in context and combined with other misconduct supported contempt conviction |
| Whether Minka’s accusatory statements that prosecution/court "betrayed" the jury and claims he was prevented from telling the truth were protected advocacy | Minka claimed broad latitude in openings/closings and denied wrongdoing; argued passion and tone are not prohibited by rules | Court and State argued statements attacked opposing counsel and the court, appealed to juror bias, and undermined judicial impartiality and order | Held such attacks and insinuations were improper and prejudicial; they supported a finding of direct contempt |
| Whether the record proves contempt beyond a reasonable doubt | Minka argued the record does not establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, focusing on isolated remarks | State pointed to repeated interventions, bench conferences, warnings, and Minka’s continued conduct that culminated in a mistrial | Court concluded the transcript and audio show willful, contemptuous conduct beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether monetary sanctions (jury costs) were excessive or improperly calculated | Minka argued the court improperly charged for venire members who never sat as jurors, inflating costs by $650 without record proof | State/court explained calculation: $25 statutory per juror for 40 voir dire participants + 14 petit jurors, authorized by URCCC 3.13 and supported by statute | Court affirmed the $1,350 jury-cost sanction and $100 fine as within the court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976 (Miss. 1988) (prohibits arguing potential punishment to a jury that has no sentencing role)
- King v. State, 784 So.2d 884 (Miss. 2001) (both sides may argue sentencing only in a jury’s sentencing phase; not during the guilt phase)
- Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (when a jury has no sentencing function, references to consequences of conviction are irrelevant and may confuse or distract jurors)
- Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975) (jury admonition principle that juries should reach verdicts without regard to potential punishment)
- Flowers v. State, 842 So.2d 531 (Miss. 2003) (attorneys may not use inflammatory or highly prejudicial tactics intended to unduly influence the jury)
- Crosby v. State, 760 So.2d 725 (Miss. 2000) (upholding assessment of jury costs against counsel under URCCC when conduct necessitates mistrial)
- Spore v. State, 214 So.3d 223 (Miss. 2017) (reviewing contempt convictions and describing appellate standard for contempt convictions)