Derrick Young v. State of Mississippi, 281 So.3d 179

Derrick Young was indicted for armed robbery and felon-in-possession after masks and a handgun were recovered from a getaway vehicle and DNA linked Young to the masks; co-defendant and an eyewitness implicated him.
During pretrial and the start of voir dire Young repeatedly interrupted, refused his appointed counsel, became physically agitated, and allegedly assaulted a deputy while being escorted to chambers.
The judge gave multiple on-the-record warnings and, pursuant to MRCrP 10.2 and Illinois v. Allen principles, removed Young from the courtroom after he refused to behave.
Defense moved for a mistrial, arguing jurors saw/heard Young’s outbursts and hallway scuffling; the judge deferred the ruling until after voir dire.
Voir dire revealed only two panelists said they were prejudiced; both were excused for cause. Young was later brought back, advised of his right to testify, testified, assured the court he would behave, and was allowed to remain.
Jury convicted Young on both counts; he was sentenced as a habitual offender and appealed, arguing improper removal and erroneous denial of mistrial. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Young's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether removal violated Sixth Amendment right to be present	Removal was unnecessary because his conduct was not sufficiently disruptive	Conduct was repeatedly disruptive, physically agitated, and warned—removal permissible under Allen and Rule 10.2	Removal was justified; no abuse of discretion
Whether court erred by not informing Young he could return upon personal assurance of good behavior	Trial court failed to tell him explicitly he could return if he promised to behave	Judge and counsel reviewed Rule 10.2; judge told Young he could stay if cooperative; defense could have requested restoration but did not	No error; Young was aware and later returned after assurance
Whether denial of mistrial was erroneous because jurors observed/heard disturbances	Exposure to outbursts, hallway scuffle, and father’s shouting prejudiced jury and warranted mistrial	Only two panelists said they were prejudiced; both excused; remaining jurors affirmed impartiality; no substantial and irreparable prejudice	Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion
Standard of review for these rulings	N/A (Young urges reversal)	Appellate review is for abuse of discretion	Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed trial court decisions

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may forfeit right to be present by disruptive conduct; trial judge has discretion to remove)
Bostic v. State, 531 So. 2d 1210 (Miss. 1988) (recognizes constitutionally permissible responses to disruptive defendants; waiver by persistent disruption)
Haynes v. State, 208 So. 3d 4 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for trying defendant in absentia)
Snow v. State, 800 So. 2d 472 (Miss. 2001) (denial of mistrial not abusive where record did not show prejudice from emotional outbursts)
Ambrose v. State, 254 So. 3d 77 (Miss. 2018) (standard for reviewing mistrial denials is abuse of discretion)
Hutto v. State, 227 So. 3d 963 (Miss. 2017) (mistrial required only for substantial and irreparable prejudice)
Lyons v. State, 237 So. 3d 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (strong presumption jurors follow court instructions)
Chambliss v. State, 233 So. 3d 898 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (denial of mistrial proper where jurors instructed and only isolated prejudice appeared)