Hardy v. State
137 So. 3d 289
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Brad Hardy was convicted in Rankin County Circuit Court of two counts of culpable-negligence manslaughter and one count of aggravated boating under the influence after a Memorial Day 2010 boating collision.
- Evidence showed Hardy operated a high-speed boat, standing, with acceleration toward a campsite, resulting in two deaths and injuries.
- Witnesses described speeding, no warnings, and Hardy denying intent, along with alcohol consumption and a BAC of .09 after the crash.
- Sea-Tow records and authorities noted a severely kinked steering cable; the defense suggested possible steering malfunction.
- The State presented eyewitness testimony, medical examiner/proof of impairment, and the jury convicted; sentencing totaled 44 years with some suspension.
- Hardy appeals on numerous grounds, challenging evidentiary rulings, speedy-trial issues, indictment sufficiency, and related trial decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoilation due process claim. | Hardy argues state-misconduct/failed preservation harmed defense. | State asserts no bad faith destruction; no exculpatory value lost. | Issue rejected; no due-process violation established. |
| Speedy-trial rights violated. | Delay prejudiced Hardy's defense and liberty. | Delay largely neutral/partly due to Hardy's actions. | No reversible speedy-trial violation; factors weighed against Hardy. |
| Motion in limine to exclude alcohol evidence denied. | Impairment evidence highly probative of culpable negligence. | Evidence admissible to prove impairment and causation. | Court properly admitted impairment evidence; no error. |
| DVD evidence in limine excluded. | Video would prove steering malfunction. | Live testimony and photos suffice; DVD hearsay/extrinsic evidence issues. | No reversible error; DVD properly excluded. |
| Indictment sufficiency challenged. | Counts I–III lacked proper allegations of culpable negligence/aggravated assault. | Counts allege essential elements; proper notices given. | Indictment deemed sufficient; no dismissal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. State, 121 So.3d 895 (Miss. 2013) (due-process spoilation standard reaffirmed)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad-faith requirement for destruction of evidence not always necessary)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (exclusionary evidence, not spoilation)
- Banks v. State, 725 So.2d 711 (Miss. 1997) (destruction of evidence concerns; applicability limited here)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial framework factors)
- Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309 (Miss. 2013) (indictment sufficiency standards clarified)