Curtis Leslie v. State of Mississippi
171 So. 3d 549
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- On April 4, 2011, Travis Taylor was carjacked in Benoit, Mississippi; he later identified two assailants as "J Dub" (Jonathan Johnson) and "B Love" (Curtis Leslie), based in part on clothing he saw that night.
- Taylor had played pool with Leslie ~1 hour before the carjacking and testified he recognized Leslie by a red/white/blue collared shirt visible under a hoodie.
- At the first joint trial of Leslie and Johnson, defense counsel questioned Taylor about a Facebook exchange, representing it showed Taylor learned Leslie’s clothing description from electronic messages; the court allowed the questioning but refused to admit the actual Facebook page.
- The judge later reviewed the Facebook page and found counsel had mischaracterized it: the messages were self-serving denials by Leslie, not a clothing description. Because admitting the page would introduce unauthenticated, self-serving statements (letting Leslie ‘testify’ without cross-examination), the State moved for a mistrial and the judge granted it.
- Leslie was retried alone six months later, did not testify, was convicted of armed carjacking, and received a 15-year sentence plus 5 years post-release supervision. Leslie appealed, arguing double jeopardy, erroneous refusal of a defense instruction, and insufficiency/weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Leslie's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial after the court-ordered mistrial violated Double Jeopardy | Mistrial was not manifestly necessary; judge could have cured prejudice with a limiting instruction | Trial judge properly exercised discretion; defense counsel misrepresented evidence and prejudiced the jury, leaving mistrial as necessary | Affirmed: mistrial was supported by manifest necessity and retrial was permitted |
| Whether the trial court refused an instruction presenting Leslie's theory of the case (D-2) | D-2 was necessary to instruct jury on impeachment and credibility conflicts (Adam v. Taylor) | D-2 addressed impeachment by a witness’s prior inconsistent statement, which did not exist for Taylor; existing instructions adequately covered credibility | Affirmed: trial court properly denied D-2; defendant’s theory was covered by other instructions |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support armed carjacking conviction | Evidence was too weak and conflicted; lack of physical evidence and alleged inconsistencies undermine conviction | Taylor’s eyewitness ID, contemporaneous statements to officials, and other testimony provided sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for a rational juror to convict |
| Weight of the evidence / motion for new trial | Verdict is against the overwhelming weight given witness conflicts and investigative gaps | Jury resolved credibility disputes; absence of physical evidence and conflicting testimony do not mandate a new trial | Affirmed: verdict not against overwhelming weight; no unconscionable injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (retrial after mistrial requires manifest necessity to avoid double jeopardy)
- Jenkins v. State, 759 So. 2d 1229 (Miss. 2000) (trial judge’s mistrial determination entitled to great weight and respect)
- Jones v. State, 398 So. 2d 1312 (Miss. 1981) (mistrial standard and necessity for explanation when declared)
- Grandberry v. Bonner, 653 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1981) (appellate deference to trial court’s mistrial decision)
- Williams v. State, 94 So. 3d 324 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate consideration of double-jeopardy claims raised on direct appeal)