Conner v. State
138 So. 3d 143
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Conner was convicted by a jury of burglary of a dwelling and felony fleeing, and sentenced by the circuit court as a habitual offender to two consecutive life terms without parole.
- Campbell identified Conner in court as the man seen in her home and provided a description of a tall black man fleeing in a dark car to police.
- Officers pursued a dark sedan matching the description; after a crash, a foot chase led to Conner's arrest.
- The State amended the indictment pretrial to include habitual-offender status; pen-pack records from Tennessee and an affidavit were introduced at that stage.
- At sentencing, pen packs and Whisman’s affidavit were incorporated by reference rather than introduced as live evidence; Conner objected to hearsay and confrontation concerns but was overruled.
- Conner challenged the habitual-offender determination on grounds that pen packs were not actually admitted at sentencing; the trial court found him an habitual offender and sentenced him to life terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence for felony fleeing | Conner identity supported by timing and proximity arguments. | Insufficient link; could not identify Conner beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence to identify Conner; conviction affirmed. |
| Burglary instruction—elements of larceny | Larceny instruction not required; intent to steal identified in burglary instruction. | Jurors lacked larceny elements; improper instruction. | Jury instruction, though not listing larceny elements, fairly informed the intent requirement; burglary conviction affirmed. |
| Introduction of pen packs at sentencing to prove habitual offender | Pen packs admitted and incorporated to prove habitual-offender status. | Pen packs not properly admitted; violated confrontation rights; insufficient proof. | Pen packs admitted by reference found sufficient; no plain error; habitual-offender status affirmed. |
| Confrontation right at sentencing | No Confrontation Clause issue given prior proceedings and evidence. | Whisman’s affidavit testimonial; Conner denied cross-examination; violation. | No plain error; court declined to extend confrontation right to sentencing (majority view). |
| Overall validity of habitual-offender sentence | Pen packs and affidavit establish prior convictions beyond reasonable doubt. | Insufficient evidence and procedure for habitual status; improper to rely on non-admitted material. | Habitual-offender designation and sentences affirmed; some concurring opinions call for remand on related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309 (Miss. 2013) (sufficiency review; standard to analyze whether rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Daniels v. State, 107 So.3d 961 (Miss. 2013) (burglary instructions must identify the intended crime)
- Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266 (Miss. 2014) (jury instruction sufficiency; sua sponte corrections required for complete guidance)
- Young v. State (second mention for habit), 507 So.2d 48 (Miss. 1987) (two-phase trial requirement for habitual-offender determinations; rights protected at sentencing)
- Seely v. State, 451 So.2d 213 (Miss. 1984) (bifurcated habitual-offender proceedings; sentencing sentencing judge as fact-finder)
- Taylor v. State, 122 So.3d 707 (Miss. 2013) (pen-pack evidence considered competent; but need clear record of admission)