Ervin v. State
136 So. 3d 1053
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Charles Ervin, a convicted felon, was convicted of armed robbery and felon in possession after a store robbery; evidence tied to his brother Michael who aided police.
- Police identified Charles after his brother pointed investigators to him; witness statements linked 'Ray Ray' alias to Michael, and Duffy identified Charles in a lineup.
- The defense sought to cross-examine Detective Stevenson about Michael’s use of Charles’s identity and multiple birthdates/SSNs; the court limited this cross-examination.
- A flight instruction was given to the jury despite objections; evidence of flight stemmed from Charles hiding in an attic after federal marshals arrived, three weeks after the robbery.
- Charles argued on appeal that the court’s limitation on cross-examination and the flight instruction violated rights to a fair trial; the trial court also faced multiple indictments and procedural maneuvering.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, focusing on the improper limitation of cross-examination as dispositive, and noted concerns about the flight instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court improperly limit cross-examination of Stevenson? | Ervin | Ervin | Reversed; cross-examination error prejudiced defense. |
| Is the flight instruction properly analyzed or reversible in this case? | Ervin | Ervin | Not decided; remand may address flight instruction issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547 (Miss.2002) (dangerousness and propriety of flight instructions; dual prongs for admissibility and instruction)
- McClendon v. State, 387 So.2d 112 (Miss.1980) (flight, escape, and related conduct admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186 (Miss.2001) (two-pronged test for flight instruction; substantial explanations negate instruction)
- Fuselier v. State, 702 So.2d 388 (Miss.1997) (flight evidence guidance; probative value considerations)
- Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66 (Miss.2010) (reversal standard when evidentiary ruling affects substantial rights)
- States v. State, 88 So.3d 749 (Miss.2012) (flight instruction framework and cautions)
- Pannell v. State, 455 So.2d 785 (Miss.1984) (conundrum in defining 'flight' and related concerns)
- Ransom v. State, 115 So.208 (Miss.1928) (historical approval of flight instruction language)