Jerry Deuntay Carr v. State of Mississippi
190 So. 3d 1
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 29, 2010, Gerald Simmons was found gravely injured in a store after an apparent robbery; he died eight days later from his injuries.
- Tyonda Tinner identified Brymon Hamp and Jerry (Bootchie) Carr as having returned from Friars Point with liquor shortly after the incident; Hamp later admitted robbing Simmons.
- Hamp and Carr were stopped in Hamp’s car; officers found alcohol and blood on Hamp’s shoe; Hamp’s clothes tested positive for blood later matched to Simmons.
- Hamp and Carr were indicted for capital murder during the commission of a robbery; their cases were severed and Carr was tried separately.
- At trial the State presented serology and DNA evidence: analyst Alexandria Bradley performed testing; William Jones, the biosciences section chief, reviewed the work, ran his own analysis, and signed the DNA report linking blood on Hamp’s clothing to Simmons.
- Carr was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal he challenged (1) admission of Jones’s testimony under the Confrontation Clause and (2) the circuit judge’s irregular jury-selection procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause—testimony by lab reviewer | Carr: Jones was a surrogate; only the analyst who ran tests (Bradley) could testify about the DNA report (Bullcoming violation). | State: Jones was the technical reviewer, performed independent analysis, and signed the report; he had personal knowledge to be cross-examined. | Court: No violation—Jones reviewed the process, analyzed data, and signed the report; his testimony satisfied Confrontation Clause (Galloway analog). |
| Confrontation Clause—alternate Williams/Williams reasoning | Carr: underlying lab report testimonial; admission via non-testing analyst violates Crawford/Bullcoming. | State: The incriminating testimonial statement (that profiles matched) came from testifying expert who relied on data; similar to Williams. | Court: Alternatively upheld under Williams theory—testifying expert gave the match opinion, not merely repeating a non-testifying analyst’s testimonial report. |
| Jury selection—pooling peremptory challenges | Carr: Judge improperly pooled regular and alternate peremptory challenges and selected alternates by drawing numbers late in trial, prejudicing defense strategy. | State: Defense failed to object at trial; jury laws are directory; defendant received an impartial jury; peremptory challenges have no constitutional dimension. | Court: Waived by failure to object; even reviewed for plain error and found none—no evidence jury was partial and no manifest miscarriage of justice. |
| Right to an impartial jury based on selection irregularity | Carr: The irregular procedure denied ability to allocate challenges and know regular jurors during trial, undermining impartial jury guarantee. | State: No showing of partiality or prejudice; peremptory challenge allocation error is harmless if jury impartial. | Court: No reversible error—no claim or showing of partial jurors; claim fails under Simmons precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (technical non-testifying analyst vs. testifying surrogate violates Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (an expert may testify that profiles match when relying on underlying lab data without admitting the nontestifying analyst's report as testimonial)
- Galloway v. State, 122 So. 3d 614 (Miss. 2013) (technical reviewer who analyzed data and signed report may testify without violating Confrontation Clause)
- Havard v. State, 986 So. 2d 333 (Miss. 2007) (irregular jury impaneling is not reversible absent evidence jurors were partial)
- Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452 (Miss. 2001) (peremptory challenges are not constitutional rights; errors in allocation harmless if jury is impartial)