178 So. 3d 760
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lowe was convicted in Jones County Circuit Court of five counts of exploitation of children and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender; Count I runs consecutively to others, Counts II–V run concurrently, all without parole eligibility.
- Lowe’s appeal argued: (1) denial of a computer forensics expert; (2) denial to voir dire the State’s expert in front of the jury; (3) the verdict weighs against the evidence.
- Five counts alleged Lowe received via the internet images of under-18s engaging in sexually explicit conduct, each occurring on June 6, 2009.
- Lowe’s association with Marie Taylor and her daughters Brittany (15) and Ivy (8) placed a broken computer at Lowe’s house or nearby, with access shared among Taylor’s family.
- The computer was later seized for forensic examination; Thomas, the State’s computer forensics expert, testified that images were downloaded by the user “Muzicman,” Lowe’s login name, and that an alternate uploader could have used Lowe’s computer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a defense computer-forensics expert was reversible | Lowe: substantial need for independent expert; crucial to rebut State’s expert | State: no substantial need; defense failed to articulate specific issues | No abuse of discretion; no substantial need shown |
| Whether defense voir dire of the State’s expert in front of the jury was required | Lowe: defense should voir dire expert with jury present | State: gatekeeping outside jury; cross-examination allowed | No reversible error; defense cross-examined during trial |
| Whether the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence | Lowe: insufficient connection shown beyond State’s expert | State: sufficient evidence of opportunity, location, and flight | Verdict not against the weight of the evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (establishes framework for providing expert aid when necessary to fair trial)
- Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So.2d 878 (Miss. 1991) (established factors for determining need for defense experts)
- King v. State, 960 So.2d 413 (Miss. 2007) (substantial need required for expert assistance)
- International Paper Co. v. Townsend, 961 So.2d 741 (Miss. 2007) (gatekeeping and voir dire procedures for experts)
- McBeath v. State, 739 So.2d 451 (Miss. 1999) (proper procedure for admitting expert testimony and voir dire)
- Dungan v. Presley, 765 So.2d 592 (Miss. 2000) (trial court control of order of proceedings)
- Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite, 53 So.3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (trial court discretion on expert reliability; timely objection required)
- Fuselier v. State, 702 So.2d 388 (Miss. 1997) (flight as admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence challenges)
- Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss. 1985) (Fisher/Fairness considerations for expert witnesses)