134 So. 3d 330
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Grindle was convicted of deliberate-design murder and sentenced to life in prison.
- Charles Brown was shot and identified Grindle as the shooter through nonverbal nods in the emergency room before Brown died.
- The State sought to admit Brown’s identification as a dying declaration under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2).
- Grindle’s counsel challenged the dying declaration; the trial court admitted it but allowed credibility challenges at trial.
- A nurse later testified Brown might have been unconscious or unable to respond, raising questions about Brown’s consciousness during the ER interview.
- Grindle appealed asserting improper admission of the dying declaration, Confrontation Clause violation, unpreserved errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Brown’s dying declaration | Grindle; declaration not meeting Rule 804(b)(2) requirements | Grindle; nurse’s later testimony undermines reliability | Dying declaration properly admitted; credibility resolved by jury |
| Confrontation Clause impact | Grindle; admission violated Crawford/Confrontation Clause | Grindle; historical exception survives | No violation; dying declaration exception applies under Confrontation Clause |
| Admission of 404(b) firearm arrest evidence | Grindle; evidence improper under 404(b)/403 | Grindle; argument not preserved; no plain error | Waived; no reversible plain-error; evidence not probative of bad character without prejudice |
| Jury instructions on malice | Grindle; presumption-of-malice improper given evidence | Grindle; no reversible error | Harmless error; presumption instruction at most harmless in context |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument—send-a-message | Grindle; comments improper and prejudicial | Grindle; not objected to, but reviewed for plain error | Not reversible; remarks not sufficiently inflammatory to require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay generally barred without prior cross-exam.)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (Deathbed identification and dying declarations—historical exception relevance.)
- Bryant, — U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (Discussed dying declarations and Confrontation Clause context (footnote discussion).)
- Ellis v. State, 558 So.2d 826 (Miss. 1990) (Historical basis for dying declarations in Mississippi)
- Berry v. State, 611 So.2d 924 (Miss. 1992) (Dying declaration consciousness inference in dying declaration context)
- Carter v. State, 493 So.2d 327 (Miss. 1986) (Presumption of malice and standard for jury instruction harms)
- Flowers v. State, 778 So.2d 809 (Miss. 2000) (Evidentiary missteps—need for 403 balancing; unfairness concerns)