292 So.3d 1006
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Late-night July 12–13, 2014 incident: Turner was accused of attacking Kimberly Anderson in the Dairy Bar/Freelon’s area (punching, choking/strangling, firing a handgun at her vehicle, and driving her home). Anthony Steele intervened and was also allegedly assaulted.
- Indictment (Apr. 2016): Count I aggravated assault with a weapon (firearm), Count II aggravated domestic violence (strangulation), Count III shooting into an occupied vehicle; firearm enhancements added to Counts I and III.
- Trial (Sept. 2017): State presented five witnesses including a SANE/doming-violence expert (Nurse Shalotta Sharp) and victim Anderson; defense presented one witness (Elizabeth Stevenson). Turner did not testify. Jury convicted on all counts and imposed consecutive sentences (including firearm enhancements).
- Pretrial/discovery events: defense’s initial expert (Dr. Summers) withdrew; defense designated Dr. William Truly 14 days before trial; court excluded Dr. Truly as untimely; Turner moved for continuance and for directed verdict/mistrial (denied).
- Appeal issues centered on expert testimony admissibility and reliability, exclusion of defense expert, courtroom closure during victim testimony (public-trial right), several evidentiary rulings, admission of a separate assault on Steele, prior-consistent statement admission, and double-jeopardy challenges. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding reversible error on the expert testimony, exclusion of the defense expert, and courtroom closure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admissibility/reliability of Nurse Sharp (SANE) testimony on domestic violence/strangulation | Sharp not qualified for domestic-violence/strangulation opinions; several opinions were speculative (eye hemorrhage, brain hypodensity, vertebra defect, chin abrasion) and unsupported by medical records | Sharp qualified as a SANE and experienced; her testimony went to weight not admissibility | Court: Sharp qualified, but portions (linking subconjunctival hemorrhage, hypodensity, chin abrasion to strangulation) were speculative/unreliable and prejudicial -> abuse of discretion; reversible error |
| 2) Exclusion of defense expert Dr. William Truly | Designation timely (14 days before trial), no willful discovery violation; exclusion deprived Turner of his right to present a defense; continuance should have been granted | Designation untimely; exclusion appropriate to enforce discovery deadlines and because of reliability concerns | Court: exclusion was abuse of discretion—designation timely under court schedule, no proof of willful tactical gamesmanship, and exclusion prejudiced defense -> reversible error |
| 3) Closure of courtroom during victim’s testimony | Court’s sua sponte closure violated Sixth Amendment and state-constitutional public-trial right; court failed to consider alternatives or make adequate findings | Closure justified by sensitivity of domestic-violence testimony; no contemporaneous effective objection | Court: closure improper under Waller/Presley (trial court must consider alternatives and make findings); constitutional error -> reversible |
| 4) Admission of evidence re: assault on Anthony Steele (separate victim) | Evidence of separate assault was improper prior-bad-acts evidence under Rules 401/403/404 | Assault on Steele was part of the same transaction/res gestae and necessary to tell a coherent story | Court: admissible as contemporaneous act closely related in time/place to charged offenses; no error |
| 5) Admission of Anderson’s prior recorded statement (prior consistent statement) | Prior-consistent statement inadmissible because fabrication motive existed from the start (not a recent fabrication) | Statement admissible to rebut express/implied charge of recent fabrication; trial testimony matched recording | Court: admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) because State rebutted a charge of recent fabrication and the proffered statement was consistent -> no abuse |
| 6) Double-jeopardy challenge to convictions and firearm enhancements | Convictions for aggravated assault and shooting into an occupied vehicle (and firearm enhancements) amount to multiple punishments for same offense | Offenses have distinct elements; firearm-enhancement statutes punishally increase sentence but do not create a separate substantive offense | Court: Blockburger governs; offenses distinct; enhancements do not violate double jeopardy -> claim without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for admissibility/reliability of expert testimony)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (Daubert factors and expert admissibility under Mississippi law)
- Young v. State, 106 So. 3d 775 (Miss. 2012) (SANE testimony and limits/roles of SANEs in sexual-assault contexts)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (Sup. Ct.) (test for closing proceedings to the public)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (Sup. Ct.) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure sua sponte)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Sup. Ct.) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Graves v. State, 969 So. 2d 845 (Miss. 2007) (aggravated-assault and shooting-into-vehicle each contain distinct elements for double-jeopardy analysis)
- Rouster v. State, 981 So. 2d 314 (Miss. Ct. App.) (prior-victim-bad-acts proof and predicate for self-defense or initial aggressor)
- Williams v. State, 54 So. 3d 212 (Miss. 2010) (discovery/delay and exclusionary remedies; preference against excluding evidence absent willful gamesmanship)