130 So. 3d 1141
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Dec. 25, 2008, Saheed Davis and Maurice Warner (who had a long-standing feud) got into an exchange at a family gathering; Warner struck Davis and left.
- Davis left, retrieved a .40-caliber pistol from his car, returned, and shot Warner ten times; Warner, unarmed, died of gunshot wounds.
- Davis fled, was captured in Oct. 2010, indicted for deliberate-design murder, tried asserting self-defense, and convicted; sentenced to life.
- At trial the State tendered instructions defining imperfect self-defense and heat-of-passion manslaughter; the jury rejected self-defense and convicted of murder.
- On appeal Davis challenged jury instructions, admission of an officer’s recounting of a witness’s out-of-court statements, exclusion of evidence about Warner’s violent character, sufficiency/weight of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Davis’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give a separate heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction sua sponte | Trial court should have independently given a separate heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction despite no request at trial | Defendant waived the issue; State had already given instructions (S-7 and S-8) that, read together, covered heat-of-passion and imperfect self-defense | Waived; no plain-error; instructions as a whole adequately covered the law and no manifest injustice |
| Instruction that aggressor cannot claim self-defense (S-6) | There was no evidence Davis was the aggressor, so S-6 was improper | Evidence showed Davis left the scene, armed himself, returned, and fired on an unarmed man; aggressor rule applies | S-6 correctly stated law and was supported by the evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of officer’s testimony recounting Yolanda’s out-of-court statements (Confrontation/hearsay) | Officer’s recitation was hearsay and violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Yolanda later testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination; officer’s testimony also admissible as part of investigative steps and under state exceptions | No Confrontation Clause violation because declarant testified; admission was within court’s discretion and any error was harmless |
| Exclusion of evidence about Warner’s violent character and specific prior acts | Excluding testimony about Warner’s reputation and specific prior threats prevented Davis from proving he was the initial aggressor and harmed self-defense | Many exclusions were either not preserved by proffer or were limited by relevance/hearsay rules; trial record inadequate to review | No reversible error: counsel failed to make proffers or preserve the record; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388 (Miss. 2009) (failure to tender heat-of-passion instruction bars raising it on appeal)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause principles)
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (no Confrontation violation when declarant testifies and is cross-examined)
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (traditional protections of oath and cross-examination satisfy confrontation concerns)
- Phillips v. State, 794 So.2d 1034 (Miss. 2001) (definition/explanation of heat-of-passion manslaughter)
- Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352 (Miss. 1986) (one who leaves an altercation, arms himself, returns and shoots cannot claim self-defense)
- Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180 (Miss. 2001) (scope of defendant’s entitlement to present victim’s character evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)