204 So. 3d 339
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 20, 2013, Adrian Moore shot at Alfred Durden and Hardy Parker in a parking lot; Parker died and Durden survived. Durden identified Moore as the shooter at the scene.
- Police recovered bullets, a skull cap, and blood on Moore’s jeans that matched Parker’s DNA; Moore was arrested and indicted for murder (Count I) and aggravated assault (Count II).
- After a jury trial in July 2014, the jury initially reported a 10–2 split; the court asked for the numerical division, gave a Sharplin instruction, released the jury overnight after querying them, and the next day the jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on both counts.
- Moore moved for JNOV or a new trial, challenged the trial judge’s handling of the deadlocked jury (alleging coercion), sought a Rule 606 hearing, and raised claims that the court improperly excluded or prevented live presentation of certain testimony and recordings; the trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed convictions and consecutive sentences (life + 20 years), rejecting coercion and record-preservation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court coerced jury / abused discretion by probing numerical split, giving Sharplin instruction, releasing jury overnight | Moore: judge’s questions and Sharplin comment pressured jurors and coerced verdict; mistrial warranted | State: judge’s conduct was proper; asking numerical split and giving Sharplin are permissible if not coercive; jurors were given time and reassurance | Affirmed — no coercion; judge did not force verdict; Sharplin instruction and overnight recess were proper |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to let defense make record via live testimony of excluded evidence (prior incident and recorded statement) | Moore: exclusion and refusal to allow live testimony denied ability to preserve record and was reversible under Kidd and related authority | State: court allowed proffers outside jury presence and permitted CD for identification; defendant preserved purpose and substance of excluded evidence | Affirmed — no reversible error; proffers and explanations sufficed to preserve the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharplin v. State, 330 So. 2d 591 (Miss. 1976) (authorizes a judge to inquire into jury deadlock and to give an instruction urging further deliberation without coercion)
- Kidd v. State, 258 So. 2d 423 (Miss. 1972) (defendant’s right to make a complete record of excluded testimony is foundational; denial can require reversal)
- Priest v. State, 275 So. 2d 79 (Miss. 1973) (when evidence is excluded, the proponent must put the testimony on the record or state specifically what it would have shown)
- Bell v. State, 443 So. 2d 16 (Miss. 1983) (counsel must by some manner show precisely what excluded testimony would have been; a proffer can be sufficient)