Travaris Richard Christian v. State of Mississippi
207 So. 3d 1207
Miss.2016Background
- On Jan. 24, 2011, Robert Carter and Renita Marks were shot to death in their home; their seven‑month‑old son was found alive, neglected and in poor condition. Investigators recovered nine 9mm casings and other ballistic evidence.
- Travaris Christian and Deon Carter (the shooter) were arrested two days later at Christian’s aunt’s home; a gun later recovered from that house matched the casings.
- Christian gave three statements to investigators admitting he accompanied Deon to Carter’s house to take property, gave varying accounts of his presence during the shooting, and acknowledged being the last person to handle the recovered gun (per a recorded jail call).
- State witnesses (including Alonzo Christian and Rhonda Shannon) testified about planning to take property, returning with a large TV and selling an item to a pawn shop; Marks’s cell phone was found on Christian when booked.
- A pathologist who did not perform the autopsies (Dr. Barnhart) reviewed the autopsy photos/notes and testified as to cause and manner of death; Christian objected on Confrontation Clause grounds.
- Jury convicted Christian of two counts of capital murder (robbery as predicate), house burglary, conspiracy, felonious child neglect, and felon in possession; trial court denied abandonment instruction and gave an aiding/abetting instruction. Court of Appeals issues were appealed to Mississippi Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause — surrogate pathologist testimony | State: Dr. Barnhart (a court‑accepted pathologist) could give independent opinions after reviewing autopsy materials; no testimonial report was admitted. | Christian: Confrontation Clause violated because Dr. Barnhart did not perform autopsies and Dr. Shaker (the autopsy pathologist) was not available for cross‑examination. | No violation: Dr. Barnhart gave her own expert opinions (not merely a conduit) and autopsy notes/reports were not admitted; Bullcoming not controlling here. |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for capital murder (aiding & abetting/robbery predicate) | Christian: Evidence shows only presence; no proof he aided/encouraged the shooting or that robbery elements were met. | State: Christian participated in burglary/robbery plan, shared in proceeds, possessed victim property (cell phone), and his statements support involvement; common‑purpose liability applies. | Evidence sufficient and weight not against verdict: rational jurors could find Christian aided/abetted robbery from which deaths resulted. |
| Felon in possession of a firearm — constructive possession | Christian: Gun not found on him; no proof he exercised control over weapon. | State: Gun found at aunt’s house; Christian admitted last to touch it in recorded call; constructive possession established. | Held: Sufficient evidence of constructive possession. |
| Felonious child neglect — substantial harm to infant | Christian: No proof he knew infant was left or that substantial harm resulted. | State: Christian had victim’s property, return with TV, proximity and phone call evidence permit inference he knew a baby was present; deputies’ testimony showed baby was in very bad state. | Held: Sufficient evidence that Christian knew infant was left without food/supervision and that substantial harm resulted. |
| Jury instructions — aiding/abetting and rejection of abandonment instruction | State: Aiding/abetting instruction proper given evidence of joint plan and participation. | Christian: Needed abandonment instruction because he ran away before killings, negating culpability for killings. | Held: Aiding/abetting instruction proper; abandonment instruction properly refused because no evidence of voluntary, effective renunciation before the criminal act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate forensic‑analyst testimony can violate Confrontation Clause when conveying a lab report produced by someone absent)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; analyst must be available for cross‑examination)
- Grim v. State, 102 So.3d 1073 (Miss. 2012) (two‑part test re: whether a testifying analyst was sufficiently involved in the analysis/report)
- Debrow v. State, 972 So.2d 550 (Miss. 2007) (discussing when an expert who participated in analysis in some capacity may testify without violating confrontation rights)
- Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss. 2001) (Mississippi pattern aiding‑and‑abetting instruction adopted)
- Woodward v. State, 143 So. 859 (Miss. 1932) (longstanding principle that coconspirators are liable for natural and probable consequences of a common scheme)