Cowart v. State
178 So. 3d 651
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Cowart was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy, but acquitted of murder and manslaughter; total sentence 53 years (48 for armed robbery, 5 for conspiracy).
- London, Cowart’s co-defendant, pled guilty to armed robbery, conspiracy, and manslaughter and received a sentence of 40–45 years.
- Cowart sought suppression of his videotaped statement and other statements; a suppression hearing occurred and portions of the statements were excluded after he asserted the right to counsel.
- Photographs of the victim, Carter, were admitted at trial; the court allowed three photographs showing injuries connected to life support, balancing probative value against prejudice.
- The jury convicted on armed robbery and conspiracy; they did not convict on murder or manslaughter and they asked for definitions of manslaughter during deliberations.
- The trial court sentenced Cowart after considering factors including life expectancy; the court described Cowart as having led a productive life and contrasted with London’s criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence punishes exercise of trial rights or acquitted conduct | Cowart; argues disproportional sentence punished him for going to trial and for acquitted conduct. | London argues differing sentences are permissible given cooperation and prior histories; Cowart claims violation of McGilvery framework. | Sentence within statutory limits; no reversal for punishment of trial rights. |
| Whether disparity between Cowart's sentence and London's requires remand | Cowart asserts substantial, unexplained disparity violates McGilvery and requires remand. | State argues no comparability mandate; disparity is permissible given histories and plea outcomes. | Disparity not shown to require remand; court allowed substantial discretion. |
| Whether admission of victim photographs was unduly prejudicial | Cowart contends photos were gruesome and prejudicial beyond probative value. | State contends photos were probative to prove manner and corroborate testimony. | Photographs admitted; probative value outweighed prejudice under Rule 403; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the jury instructions regarding manslaughter were proper | Cowart contends manslaughter instruction was improper given acquittal on that charge. | State contends mootness; no impact on verdict since acquittal occurred. | Issue deemed moot; no reversible error found. |
| Whether Cowart's statement to police was voluntary and admissible | Cowart argues waiver was involuntary or not fully knowing due to Miranda rights discussion. | State argues waiver signs and videotape show voluntariness; suppression affirmed only for portion after request for counsel. | Voluntariness not established as procedurally barred; waiver and initial statements admissible to extent allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 849 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 2003) (standard for admission of photographs; balancing probative value against prejudice)
- McGilvery v. State, 497 So.2d 67 (Miss. 1986) (right to trial; improper penalization for exercising jury trial rights; remand if unexplained disparity)
- Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1978) (leniency and plea bargaining; constitutionality of trial-right considerations)
- Watts, U.S. 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquitted-conduct sentencing; preponderance standard historically allowed but later scrutinized post-Booker)
- King v. State, 857 So.2d 702 (Miss. 2008) (weight of evidence vs. disparity with codefendant; instigator considerations)
- Rogers v. State, 928 So.2d 831 (Miss. 2006) (sentence within statutory limits; standard of review for sentencing within allowed range)