McKenzie v. State
119 So. 3d 1145
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- McKenzie was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirms the circuit court.
- Event occurred around 3:00 a.m. on August 10, 2010: Bullock found dead with gunshot wound in a blue van; two men, McKenzie and Hatten, fled the scene.
- Surveillance placed McKenzie near Stewart Apartments and later at McKenzie’s apartments; Lortab pills and Bullock’s name on a bottle were found; Bullock’s DNA on the bottle.
- Co-worker Reid testified McKenzie asked to buy Lortab; a .380 pistol was found nearby and matched bullets from Bullock’s wound.
- McKenzie admitted shooting Bullock in his testimony; claimed self-defense against Bullock’s alleged drug-for-sex demands and liver disease; trial also involved evidentiary and instructional challenges.
- Procedural posture: severed trial with Hatten; McKenzie sought and the court admitted videotaped deposition testimony due to a key witness’s health; several issues on evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of victim’s prior propensities | McKenzie asserts relevance of Bullock’s drug history and homosexual tendencies to support self-defense. | McKenzie argues such propensity evidence is admissible under M.R.E. 401/404. | No abuse of discretion; evidence inadmissible and, even if error, harmless. |
| Videotaped deposition in lieu of live testimony | State sought deposition to preserve testimony; McKenzie fought confrontation rights. | Deposition is permissible when witness unavailable and cross-examination already afforded. | Admissible deposition did not violate confrontation rights; no abuse of discretion. |
| Unavailability of Detective Sepulveda | Court erred in declaring unavailable without adequate on-the-record basis. | Detective’s serious health issues and imminent surgery justified unavailability. | No error; witness unavailable due to documented health condition; deposition admitted. |
| Jury Instruction S-13A (self-defense in capital murder during robbery) | Instruction misstates law by denying self-defense as a defense to capital murder. | Instruction correctly reflects law that aggressor cannot claim self-defense; Layne v. State supports. | No error in giving instruction. |
| Jury Instruction S-3 (one continuous transaction, robbery context) | Instruction properly links actions to robbery under the one continuous transaction theory. | Instruction may presume robbery occurred; insufficient basis. | Sufficient evidence supported instruction; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. State, 76 So.3d 736 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Green v. State, 89 So.3d 543 (Miss. 2012) (preservation and proffer requirements)
- Conners v. State, 92 So.3d 676 (Miss. 2012) (unavailability and cross-examination prerequisite for deposition testimony)
- Wilson v. State, 923 So.2d 1039 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (deposition testimony of an expert witness to be admissible when unavailable)
- Layne v. State, 542 So.2d 237 (Miss. 1989) (aggressor forfeits self-defense; one continuous transaction logic)
- Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937 (Miss. 1999) (one continuous transaction in capital murder)
- West v. State, 553 So.2d 8 (Miss. 1989) (one continuous transaction; scope of capital murder indictment)
- Pickle v. State, 345 So.2d 623 (Miss. 1977) (scope of underlying felony in capital murder)
- Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897 (Alaska 1970) (self-defense and heightened aggressor concepts in robbery context)