251 So. 3d 761
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 15, 2015, Chris Fairley shot and killed his cousin Mark Fairley in a shaved-ice stand parking lot in Biloxi; Fairley admitted shooting the victim but asserted self-defense.
- Two eyewitnesses observed Fairley shoot Mark (first shot from ~15 feet) and continue firing as Mark turned toward his car; neither saw Mark armed.
- No weapon was recovered on or near Mark; five shell casings were recovered; medical testimony established death by gunshot wounds.
- The medical examiner who performed the autopsy (Dr. Erin Barnhart) no longer worked at the office; Dr. Mark LeVaughn—who did not perform the autopsy—testified after reviewing the autopsy materials and consulting with Dr. Barnhart.
- A Harrison County jury convicted Fairley of deliberate-design murder; he appealed, raising (1) a Confrontation Clause challenge to Dr. LeVaughn’s testimony and (2) a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admissibility of testimony by an ME who did not perform the autopsy | State: LeVaughn reviewed autopsy materials, consulted with the autopsy examiner, and had requisite involvement/knowledge to testify | Fairley: Testimony violated Sixth Amendment because the actual autopsy performer was unavailable and the report was testimonial | Court held no violation — LeVaughn had intimate knowledge and participated in production/review of report, satisfying Confrontation Clause tests |
| Sufficiency of evidence for deliberate-design murder | State: eyewitnesses and medical evidence support deliberate design to kill; jury instructed on murder and defenses | Fairley: at most heat-of-passion manslaughter or imperfect self-defense | Court held evidence sufficient — viewing facts in State’s favor a rational jury could find deliberate design beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 102 So. 3d 1063 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; Confrontation discussion)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and right to confront witnesses)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports as testimonial evidence)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (limits on surrogate testimony for forensic reports)
- McGowen v. State, 859 So. 2d 320 (Miss. 2003) (expert involvement test where testifying expert did not perform analysis)
- Christian v. State, 207 So. 3d 1207 (Miss. 2016) (upholding testimony of pathologist who reviewed autopsy performed by another)
- Grim v. State, 102 So. 3d 1073 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation Clause and forensic testimony)
- Brown v. State, 965 So. 2d 1023 (Miss. 2007) (elements and intent for deliberate-design murder)
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)