Stewart Chase Vaughn v. State of Mississippi
189 So. 3d 650
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 8–9, 2012, confidential informant James Denton conducted a police-arranged "bust buy" and purchased ~3 grams of methamphetamine from Stewart Vaughn; Vaughn was arrested the next morning with passenger Tammy Brewer.
- Brewer told officers (and later gave a recorded statement) that Vaughn had thrown cash/items from the passenger-side window; officers searched that night and the next day and found marked buy money.
- Vaughn was indicted for sale of methamphetamine; the State moved to amend the indictment to add habitual-offender allegations and the court granted the amendment before trial.
- Vaughn moved to suppress evidence including Brewer’s statements; the court excluded Brewer’s recorded statement but reserved ruling on other evidence and told defense to object at trial as needed.
- At trial, Denton and Investigator Duke testified about the buy and the subsequent search; defense failed to contemporaneously object to some testimony and elicited from Duke that his investigation pointed to Vaughn as the person who discarded items.
- Jury convicted Vaughn; he was sentenced as a habitual and subsequent drug offender to 60 years and a $10,000 fine. Vaughn appealed asserting evidentiary and indictment-amendment errors; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Vaughn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about Brewer’s out-of-court statements | Testimony (and prosecutor comments) about Brewer’s statements were inadmissible hearsay and violated Crawford because Vaughn lacked opportunity to cross-examine Brewer | Trial court excluded Brewer’s recorded statement; any other testimony was admissible and Vaughn waived review by not objecting contemporaneously; some references explained police conduct, not truth of statement | No reversible error; evidence/admissions were either not hearsay, elicited by defense, or used to explain police conduct; Crawford not violated |
| Admission of Denton’s testimony identifying Vaughn as seller | Denton’s ID and testimony were unreliable and should have been excluded sua sponte | State: defense did not object at trial; Denton’s testimony was admissible | No abuse of discretion; failure to object waived claim |
| Prosecutor’s opening/closing remarks referencing Brewer’s statements | Prosecutorial references introduced forbidden hearsay and prejudiced defense | Remarks are argument, not evidence; jury presumed to consider only admissible evidence; defense failed to contemporaneously object except during closing where court sustained objection | Remarks did not require reversal; objection sustained and mistrial denied |
| Amendment of indictment to add habitual-offender status | Adding habitual-offender language after plea date prejudiced defense and affected plea decisions | Amendment was timely (more than two months before trial), disclosed prior convictions, and defense did not object | Amendment permissible under Rule 7.09; no prejudice shown; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements inadmissible against defendant absent unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Slaughter v. State, 815 So. 2d 1122 (Miss. 2002) (arguments by counsel in opening/closing are not evidence)
- Rogers v. State, 85 So. 3d 293 (Miss. 2012) (defendant cannot complain about evidence he elicits at trial)
- Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280 (Miss. 1992) (same principle regarding defendant-produced evidence)
- Havard v. State, 928 So. 2d 771 (Miss. 2006) (trial court not at fault for failing to rule on an objection not made)
- Moore v. State, 1 So. 3d 871 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (Confrontation Clause does not bar use of testimonial statements for non-truth-purpose such as explaining police investigation)
- Gowdy v. State, 56 So. 3d 540 (Miss. 2010) (amendment of indictment after conviction is improper)