Cameron Travelstead v. State of Mississippi
2016-KA-00013-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Cameron Travelstead was arrested after peer‑to‑peer (FrostWire) reports tied hash values of known child‑pornography images to an IP subscriber (his uncle); agents found Travelstead at the residence and he admitted downloading pornography. Forensic exam of his laptop recovered deleted child‑pornography images and search terms.
- Travelstead was indicted under Miss. Code §97‑5‑33(5) for possession of child pornography, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years (12 to serve, 8 suspended) plus five years post‑release supervision.
- Major contested evidentiary points: (1) testimony that images were “known images” from NCMEC/AG databases (hearsay/expert reliance); (2) prosecutor’s closing comment that Travelstead shared images; (3) trial court’s amendment of the indictment to broaden the date range; (4) exclusion of certain defense evidence about Travelstead’s background and counseling.
- Travelstead also raised ineffective assistance of counsel and a refused jury instruction (D‑7) on jury deliberations.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed admissibility under abuse of discretion (evidence) and de novo for legal questions, and affirmed the conviction on all preserved issues; it dismissed the ineffective‑assistance claim without prejudice for post‑conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Travelstead's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of “known images” testimony (hearsay) | Testimony identifying images as NCMEC/AG “known” images was impermissible hearsay and undermined search warrant and proof. | Experts may rely on such databases under M.R.E. 703; witnesses were cross‑examined and reports were not admitted. | Admission was proper under Rule 703 principles; no reversible error. |
| Prosecutor closing argument re: sharing images | Prosecutor improperly argued Travelstead shared images though not charged with dissemination, prejudicing the jury. | FrostWire operation inherently advertises/shares files while downloading; argument was supported by investigator testimony and court instructed jury that arguments are not evidence. | No error; argument was supported by evidence about P2P behavior. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel committed multiple errors affecting fairness; requires relief. | Record is incomplete for appellate resolution; issue better raised in PCR. | Claim dismissed without prejudice to allow post‑conviction relief filing; not resolved on the merits. |
| Amendment of indictment (date range) | Expanding alleged offense dates from one day to 23 days was a substantive amendment prejudicing the defense. | Time was not an element; amendment was form only and prior images would be admissible to show lack of mistake. | Amendment permitted as one of form (time not essential); no error. |
| Refused jury instruction D‑7 (holdout juror instruction) | D‑7 properly stated law and should have been given to protect minority juror voting rights. | D‑7 encouraged deadlock and was cumulative of instruction C‑4; judge would give special instruction if jury reported a split. | Refusal proper; instructions taken as a whole were adequate. |
| Exclusion of defense evidence about background/counseling | Trial court erred in excluding testimony explaining life circumstances and counselor testimony opening context for defense. | Such evidence was irrelevant to possession element and would be mitigation for sentencing, not admissible to excuse criminal conduct. | Exclusion was proper; evidence not relevant to guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. State, 23 So. 3d 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Darnell v. Darnell, 167 So. 3d 195 (Miss. 2014) (experts may rely on inadmissible evidence under Rule 703; opposing counsel can impeach via Rule 705)
- Dancer v. State, 721 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 1998) (prosecutorial argument standard; reversal if natural and probable effect creates unjust prejudice)
- Taylor v. State, 167 So. 3d 1143 (Miss. 2015) (Strickland two‑prong standard applied in Mississippi)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (constitutional ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Grady v. State, 190 So. 3d 870 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (when appellate court may address ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Jones v. State, 993 So. 2d 386 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (indictment must notify defendant of nature and cause of accusation)
- Griffin v. State, 584 So. 2d 1274 (Miss. 1991) (indictment may not be amended to change nature of charge; permissible amendments must be of form)
- Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001) (date amendment is form only unless time is essential element)
- Comby v. State, 901 So. 2d 1282 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (instructions reviewed as a whole; defects not reversible if overall instructions fairly state law)