Roach v. State
2013 Miss. LEXIS 348
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Jimmie Roach was convicted in 2004 of possession of cocaine and hydromorphone and received heavily enhanced consecutive sentences; convictions were ultimately affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2010 Roach filed a post-conviction-relief motion, claiming newly discovered evidence: juror Derrick Tate was exposed during trial to extraneous information from law-enforcement witnesses that Roach would receive "five to eight years."
- Tate submitted an affidavit and later testified inconsistently about how he heard the statement (approached officers vs. overheard), whether he named the officers, and whether the information affected his verdict; he admitted not reading the affidavit before signing.
- The alleged officers (Lieutenant Spooner and another) denied recalling such a hallway comment and said they would not have speculated about a 5–8 year sentence given the facts of the case.
- The trial court discounted Tate’s credibility and denied relief for lack of a threshold showing of extraneous prejudicial information; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the lower courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-conviction relief is warranted because a juror received extraneous prejudicial information | Roach: juror Tate heard law-enforcement say Roach would get 5–8 years, and that exposure likely affected the verdict | State: Tate’s account is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and he said he did not tell other jurors; presumption of jury impartiality not overcome | Held: Roach failed to show good cause to believe extraneous prejudicial information was received; relief denied |
| Whether the trial court should have reconvened or investigated the jury | Roach: case should be remanded to investigate whether other jurors were exposed and whether verdict could have been altered | State: no adequate threshold showing to justify reconvening; delays in reporting undermined claim | Held: no sufficient evidence to warrant investigation or reconvening the jury |
| Whether the trial court violated Rule 606(b) by asking juror how the info affected deliberations | Roach: trial court improperly inquired into effect of extraneous info (inadmissible) but evidence of exposure remained | State: court erred in questioning but credited inconsistencies in testimony | Held: trial court erred in asking about deliberative effect, but error was harmless because credibility problems left no threshold showing |
| Whether claim is time-barred or procedurally defaulted for delay in reporting | Roach: asserted right to impartial jury justifies review despite delay | State: Preston (Roach’s brother) learned of incident soon after trial but affidavit and motion came years later | Held: court noted delay and that parties weren’t notified expeditiously, but nevertheless reviewed merits and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gladney v. Clarksdale Beverage Co., Inc., 625 So.2d 407 (Miss. 1993) (establishes procedure and threshold "good cause" standard for investigating juror misconduct or extraneous influence)
- James v. State, 912 So.2d 940 (Miss. 2005) (examples of when juror-exposure testimony meets Gladney threshold and warrants reconvening/polling jury)
- Crawford v. State, 867 So.2d 196 (Miss. 2003) (standard for "newly discovered evidence" — must probably produce different result)
- Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921 (Miss. 2005) (recognizes finality interests and limits on post-trial juror inquiry)
- Doss v. State, 19 So.3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (burden of proof in post-conviction relief is by preponderance; deference to trial judge’s credibility findings)