C. D. Pickle, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
203 So. 3d 753
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- C.D. Pickle Jr. was convicted of capital murder for the 1974 killing of Mary Elizabeth Harthcock; after a 1975 conviction was reversed, he was retried in 1978, convicted, and sentenced to life.
- Pickle filed numerous post-conviction-relief (PCR) motions over decades raising sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance, jury-instruction defects, innocence, and requests for DNA testing/exhumation; many prior motions were dismissed as time-barred, successive, or on res judicata grounds.
- In 2011 Pickle sought DNA testing under the amended Mississippi Code (section 99-39-5); this Court (2013) remanded solely to determine whether the statutory DNA exception tolled procedural bars and whether DNA testing was warranted.
- On remand the Leflore County Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing, denied DNA testing and exhumation, and dismissed Pickle’s PCR motions; Pickle appealed.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated two appeals and affirmed the circuit court, rejecting claims that the court misapplied procedural bars, that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair hearing, that exhumation/DNA testing was justified, and that an alleged defective jury instruction required relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand precluded procedural bars on sufficiency claim | Pickle: prior appellate decision favored his sufficiency claim and remand removed procedural bar | State: earlier opinion only remanded to address DNA exception; sufficiency claim remains procedurally barred | Court: Procedural bar applies; remand was limited to DNA/time-bar exception, issue without merit |
| Entitlement to DNA testing or exhumation | Pickle: evidence lost; prosecutor uncooperative; exhumation could yield DNA to exonerate him | State: parties diligently sought evidence; no proof of intentional loss; expert testified exhumation would be futile | Court: Affirmed denial—state expert testimony showed recovery was implausible; Pickle offered no rebuttal expert |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct at evidentiary hearing violated due process | Pickle: prosecutor obstructed efforts and denied a fair Fourteenth Amendment hearing | State: no record objection; no evidence of intentional destruction or misconduct | Court: No merit—no record support of misconduct or prejudice |
| Jury instruction defect re: elements of underlying felony | Pickle: 1978 jury lacked instruction on elements of attempted rape; claim is fundamental and overrides procedural bars | State: claim is successive, time-barred, and res judicata applies; prior appeals addressed instructions | Court: Barred by res judicata; prior appellate rulings found instructions proper; issue without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickle v. State, 115 So. 3d 896 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (remanding solely to determine applicability of DNA/time-bar exception)
- Pickle v. State, 345 So. 2d 623 (Miss. 1977) (prior reversal of conviction)
- Pickle v. State, 791 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 2001) (issues concerning out-of-time appeal adjudicated)
- Pickle v. State, 942 So. 2d 243 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (prior PCR review addressing jury instructions and collateral estoppel)
- Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (discussing futility of exhumation/DNA recovery in aged, embalmed remains)
- Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266 (Miss. 2014) (failure to instruct jury on elements can implicate due process)
- Hill v. Carroll Cty., 17 So. 3d 1081 (Miss. 2009) (doctrine and scope of res judicata)