174 So. 3d 275
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Sheriff Garry Welford was killed when a pickup truck ran over him during a high-speed police pursuit; occupants were Brandy Williams and Christopher (Chris) Baxter.
- Baxter and Williams were indicted separately for capital murder; Baxter was tried first and convicted; he later invoked his Fifth Amendment right at Williams’s trial and was unavailable.
- Baxter gave a recorded post-arrest statement to police in which he admitted driving through the roadblock, said Williams initially drove but they switched seats, and claimed he (Baxter) was driving when the truck struck the sheriff; DNA from Baxter was found on the steering wheel and no female DNA was recovered from the truck.
- At Williams’s trial the court excluded Baxter’s post-arrest statement under M.R.E. 804(b)(3), admitted multiple aiding-and-abetting instructions, and also gave an instruction (S-7A) stating a defendant is liable if her act contributed to the death.
- Williams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; she appealed, arguing among other points that exclusion of Baxter’s statement and the giving of S-7A were reversible errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Baxter’s post-arrest statement under M.R.E. 804(b)(3) (statement against interest) | Williams: statement was a self-inculpating admission by Baxter, corroborated by DNA and witness ID, and essential exculpatory evidence showing Williams may not have been driving | State: statement untrustworthy (inconsistencies, Baxter a felon, possibly on drugs) and thus inadmissible | Court: Reversed — Baxter’s statement met Rule 804(b)(3) requirements (unavailable, against interest, corroborated) and exclusion was reversible error |
| Jury instruction S-7A (contributory cause of death) | Williams: instruction improperly shifted burden and was unnecessary because aiding-and-abetting instructions already explained liability; could force conviction despite abandonment | State: S-7A appropriate under precedent (act need not be sole cause) to prevent escape from responsibility | Court: Reversed — S-7A abused discretion; it risked shifting burden to defendant and was redundant given aiding-and-abetting instructions |
| Refusal to give defendant’s identification instruction | Williams: jury should be told to acquit if not convinced beyond reasonable doubt she was driving at impact | State: identification-only instruction incorrect because defendant can be guilty as aider/abettor even if not driver; multiple witnesses identified her driving at parts of the chase | Court: Affirmed — instruction misstated law and identification did not hinge on a single witness |
| Admission of State’s closing from Baxter’s trial | Williams: prior prosecution argument that Baxter was driver (or directing) was party admission and should be admissible to show inconsistency and aid her defense | State: argument was advocacy and not a testimonial party admission; courts allow inconsistent theories in separate trials | Court: Affirmed — refusal proper; prior closing was advocacy/invitation to infer and not admissible as a party admission under the McKeon/Hoover standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. State, 655 So. 2d 824 (Miss. 1995) (co-defendant statements may be excluded if the overall statement is untrustworthy and does not fully exculpate the accused)
- Lacy v. State, 700 So. 2d 602 (Miss. 1997) (adopts reliability factors for statements against interest, including corroboration and whether declarant could have committed the crime)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional right to present witnesses; hearsay rule cannot be applied mechanistically when statements bear persuasive assurances of trustworthiness)
- Holliday v. State, 418 So. 2d 69 (Miss. 1982) (act need not be sole cause of death; liability if act contributed to death)
- Hoover v. State, 552 So. 2d 834 (Miss. 1989) (judicial estoppel and admissibility of prior trial argument as party admission limited; inconsistent theories in separate trials permitted but prior advocacy is not necessarily admissible)
- United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1984) (prior counsel statements may be admitted as party admissions only when they assert facts inconsistent with subsequent assertions and are equivalent to testimonial statements)
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for overturning verdict on weight of evidence—only where verdict is against overwhelming weight so as to sanction unconscionable injustice)