Robert Carson v. State of Mississippi
2016 Miss. LEXIS 473
| Miss. | 2016Background
- On April 30, 2012, Jose Ortiz was robbed and fatally shot in an apartment-complex parking lot; Robert Carson was indicted for capital murder (underlying robbery), felon-in-possession, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
- Co-defendants Edward Clay and Bobby Allen later confessed; Clay testified at trial (and had pleaded guilty to armed robbery), implicating Carson as the shooter; Clay had previously recanted an earlier confession and admitted drug use at the time of the offense.
- Other evidence: a neighbor heard the shot and saw a man run; surveillance placed Ortiz at a store shortly before the time window of the crime; no gun, shell casing, or fingerprints were recovered.
- Jury convicted Carson on all counts; he received life without parole for capital murder plus concurrent/consecutive terms on other counts.
- On appeal Carson argued (1) ineffective assistance for failure to request an accomplice-testimony cautionary instruction, (2) that the trial court should have given his proposed instructions D‑6 and D‑7, (3) the court should consider a post-trial affidavit by Allen, and (4) his multicount indictment was facially defective for failing to name the robbery victim.
Issues
| Issue | Carson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting an accomplice-testimony cautionary instruction | Counsel erred by failing to request instruction warning jury to view accomplice testimony with caution; this likely affected outcome | Failure to request the instruction was not prejudicial because other evidence and testimony (e.g., Aretha Brent’s statement, Clay’s plea) supported conviction | Counsel’s performance was deficient for not requesting the instruction, but Carson failed to show Strickland prejudice; no relief granted |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing proposed jury instructions D‑6 (presumption phrasing) and D‑7 (convicting on suspicion) | D‑6/D‑7 were correct statements of law and necessary to protect presumption of innocence and bar conviction on suspicion | Given instructions C‑1 and C‑2, the substance of D‑6 and D‑7 was covered; refusal was not reversible error | Trial court acted within discretion; instructions given fairly announced the law; refusal harmless |
| Whether the court should consider Bobby Allen’s post-trial affidavit (submitted after record) | The affidavit recants prior statements and claims Allen committed the killing; should be considered on direct appeal | The affidavit is outside the trial record and not properly before the Court on direct appeal under M.R.A.P. 22(b) | Court declined to consider the affidavit on direct appeal because it is outside the designated record |
| Whether the multicount indictment was facially defective for not naming the victim of the underlying robbery (impact on notice/double jeopardy) | Failure to name the robbery victim in the capital‑murder count denied constitutionally sufficient notice and impaired double‑jeopardy protection | Indictment need only identify the underlying felony and cite the statute; naming the robbery victim is not a required element | Court overruled any prior contrary language in Rowland, held naming underlying felony and statute is sufficient; indictment not fatally defective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Derden v. State, 522 So.2d 752 (Miss. 1988) (accomplice-testimony cautionary instruction principle)
- Wheeler v. State, 560 So.2d 171 (Miss. 1990) (accomplice instruction mandatory when conviction rests solely on accomplice and guilt not clearly proven)
- Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (factors for requesting cautionary instruction: whether witness is an accomplice and whether testimony is corroborated)
- Rowland v. State, 98 So.3d 1032 (Miss. 2012) (discussed and overruled in part regarding requirement to identify victim of underlying felony)
- Batiste v. State, 121 So.3d 808 (Miss. 2013) (capital‑murder indictment need only identify underlying felony and statutory citation; no need to list robbed items)
- Havard v. State, 928 So.2d 771 (Miss. 2006) (court will not consider outside‑the‑record affidavits on direct appeal)
- Burks v. State, 770 So.2d 960 (Miss. 2000) (indictment must state victim when identity is an element; material variance fatal)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (due process prohibits retroactive abolition of a rule when change is unexpected and indefensible)