Harden v. State
59 So. 3d 594
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Harden convicted by jury of statutory rape of his 12-year-old stepdaughter L.Q. under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-65(l)(b); sentence: 20 years MDOC, 10 years post-release with 5 years reporting.
- Trial occurred after prior continuances; defense sought mental evaluation and contends competency issues.
- Confession admitted at trial; L.Q. testified inconsistently; physical exam showed recent genital trauma.
- Defense presented hydrocephalus with medical disability as mitigatingChar.
- Court denied motions for continuance and for mental evaluation; conviction affirmed on appeal.
- Dissent by J. Kitchens argues suppression of confession was required under Edwards v. Arizona.
- Verdict upheld; issues include voluntariness of confession and whether instruction on coercion should have been given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continued continuance and mental evaluation denial | Harden needed evaluation; timing prejudiced preparation | Trial court abused discretion; lack of grounds for delay | No reversible error; court acted within discretion |
| Ineffective assistance for not seeking evaluation earlier | Counsel failed to pursue timely mental evaluation | Record insufficient to assess; needs post-conviction development | Dismissed without prejudice to post-conviction relief |
| Admission of confession; voluntariness | Confession coerced by religious prompts and pressure | Confession voluntary; Miranda rights understood | Confession voluntary; no reversible error |
| Right to counsel invocation and suppression of confession | Harden invoked right to counsel; interrogation should cease | Invocation not clear; interrogation lawful | Confession admissible; no invocation of counsel found |
| Coercion instruction to jury on confession | Ellis v. State instruction should have been given | Instruction improper; jury weighs credibility, not coercion | Instruction properly refused; court determines coercion in suppression context |
Key Cases Cited
- Densmore v. State, 27 So.3d 379 (Miss.2009) (preserves continuance issues when last-minute disclosures occur)
- Gowdy v. State, 592 So.2d 29 (Miss.1991) (continuance preservation and trial procedure bases)
- Goff v. State, 14 So.3d 625 (Miss.2009) (competency/mental-state evaluation discretion)
- Thomas v. State, 42 So.3d 528 (Miss.2010) (voluntariness and coercion factors in confessions)
- Ruffin v. State, 992 So.2d 1165 (Miss.2008) (exhortation vs. coercion during interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (right to counsel requires interrogation cessation upon invocation)
- Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848 (Miss.1991) (ambiguous invocation requires clarifying inquiry; not a strict rule here)
- Norwood v. State, 258 So.2d 756 (Miss.1972) (judge determines coercion; jury does not decide coercion issue)
- Chamberlin v. State, 989 So.2d 320 (Miss.2008) (clarification of Edwards duty; interrogator must stop upon invocation unless initiated further communication)