Havard v. State
2012 Miss. LEXIS 118
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Havard was convicted of capital murder (murder during sexual battery) of six-month-old Chloe Britt; death sentence imposed and affirmed on direct appeal
- DNA on bed sheets matched Havard and Chloe; sexual battery evidence contested but not on all samples
- Britt gave a videotaped statement pretrial; trial focused on her trial testimony contrasting with the taped statement
- Havard’s post-conviction motions include a successive petition alleging Brady/Napue claims, ineffective assistance, and newly discovered evidence
- Court examines procedural bars and whether new material evidence would alter the outcome
- Court denies post-conviction relief as time-barred and successive writs; relief denied for all asserted grounds
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation—exculpatory evidence suppressed | Havard claims videotaped Britt statement was suppression | State asserts no suppression; counsel watched tape | No Brady violation; not suppressed; procedural bars apply |
| Napue/false testimony by Britt | Videotaped statement contradiction shows false testimony | Disparities not material; not newly discovered evidence | No Napue violation; not newly discovered; issues procedurally barred |
| Ineffective assistance for not using the videotaped statement | Counsel deficient for not using exculpatory evidence | Statement as trial strategy; no prejudice shown | Barred; fails Strickland; procedurally barred; no merit |
| Newly discovered evidence of innocence regarding underlying sexual battery | Dr. Hayne deposition supports innocence | Evidence not new; not practically conclusive | No new evidence; procedurally barred; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance related to underlying felony | Hayne deposition could revive ineffective-assistance claims | Claims previously resolved; deposition duplicative | Procedurally barred and meritless; no prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (federal Brady rule on suppression of favorable evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false testimony and due process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; deficiente performance and prejudice)
- Manning v. State, 929 So.2d 885 (Miss.2006) (Brady/Napue framework in Mississippi courts)
- Williams v. State, 35 So.3d 480 (Miss.2010) (evidence sufficiency in sexual-battery case; expert testimony limits)