State of Mississippi v. Kevin Scott
233 So. 3d 253
| Miss. | 2017Background
- In 1995 Kevin Scott (then 18) killed Richard Lee; he was convicted of capital murder in 1998 and sentenced to death.
- Scott initially raised an Atkins (intellectual disability) claim on direct appeal; this Court denied relief but allowed a PCR Atkins hearing if supported by an affidavit (Scott I).
- In Scott II (2006) this Court remanded for an Atkins hearing and (at that time) required the MMPI-II or equivalent malingering testing; that MMPI-II mandate was later abrogated by Lynch.
- At the 2013–2014 Atkins hearing Scott presented expert and lay testimony and multiple historical IQ scores (many in the intellectually disabled range); the State’s expert testified Scott was malingering based on several effort tests.
- The trial judge found Scott proven intellectually disabled by a preponderance of the evidence, vacated his death sentence, and the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott complied with this Court’s prior mandate to administer a malingering test | Scott II required a specific malingering test and Scott failed to provide one | Scott relied on comparative IQ history and expert methods argued acceptable under Chase and Lynch | Requirement to take MMPI-II was overruled by Lynch; no mandatory specific test required |
| Whether Dr. Zimmerman’s method (comparing multiple IQ scores) was admissible/reliable under MRE 702 | Back-to-back IQ tests are not a validated malingering method and are unreliable | Method supported by literature and longitudinal consistency; multiple historic low scores rule out malingering | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting Zimmerman; method goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Whether school psychologist Gussie Farris could testify as an expert | Farris is not a licensed psychologist as required by Chase | Farris qualified under Rule 702 and provided relevant, reliable testimony about school testing and records | Chase requires at least one licensed psychologist but does not preclude other experts; trial court properly admitted Farris |
| Whether the trial judge improperly credited Scott’s experts over the State’s expert | Judge should have credited State’s expert (malingering) | Trial judge as factfinder may credit Scott’s experts and lay evidence | Appellate court must defer to trial judge credibility findings absent clear error; finding of intellectual disability affirmed |
| Whether the trial judge merely adopted Scott’s proposed findings rather than making independent findings | The judgment mirrors Scott’s proposed findings and thus is not the court’s own | No record evidence was made to support that claim; State failed to supplement record | Court refused to consider matter because State failed to include supporting material in the record; issue without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (death penalty unconstitutional for intellectually disabled defendants)
- Scott v. State, 938 So. 2d 1233 (Miss. 2006) (Scott II) (remanded for Atkins hearing and at the time required MMPI-II)
- Lynch v. State, 951 So. 2d 549 (Miss. 2007) (clarifying no mandatory specific malingering test; courts may use other approved tests)
- Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013 (Miss. 2004) (Atkins framework: expert must opine to reasonable degree of certainty; MMPI-II and/or similar testing or other procedures under Rules of Evidence)
- Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (trial judge is factfinder on intellectual disability; appellate review deferential)
- Goodin v. State, 102 So. 3d 1102 (Miss. 2012) (standard that trial-court findings on intellectual disability will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous)