365 So.3d 229
Miss.2023Background
- On Jan. 13, 2018 William Chisholm entered Dr. Shauna Witt’s optometry office (attached to a Wal‑Mart Vision Center), overpowered her in an exam room, produced a pistol, and shot her twice; she died at the scene.
- Dr. Witt had recently obtained a restraining order against Chisholm and instructed staff to call 911 if he appeared; staff did call 911 when he arrived.
- Surveillance video, eyewitness testimony, shell casings, recovered firearm, and autopsy evidence were admitted at trial; Chisholm was arrested in the Wal‑Mart parking lot and charged with capital murder (burglary as the underlying felony).
- The grand jury re‑indicted after the State conceded the first indictment, alleging burglary by breaking and entering a building with intent to commit an assault therein (burglary of a non‑dwelling as the predicate felony).
- Defense attempted to present Dr. Jennifer Carroll as an insanity/forensic psychology expert; the trial court excluded her based on qualifications and Rule 702; defense presented alternative expert testimony via video deposition.
- A jury convicted Chisholm of capital murder; he was sentenced to life without parole. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Chisholm's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment/burglary predicate | Indictment alleging burglary "with intent to commit an assault therein" adequately notifies defendant of predicate felony for capital murder | Indictment is defective for failing to identify victim or specify type/degree of assault | Affirmed: general allegation of intent to commit an assault suffices; Carson/Booker/Lancaster controls |
| Breaking element where building open to public | Breaking can be actual or constructive; invitation irrelevant if entry gained while intending to commit crime | A business open to the public cannot be burglarized; no breaking occurred | Affirmed: constructive breaking applies (Templeton/Fulgham); Chisholm was not invited and was forbidden by restraining order |
| Intent to commit assault (sufficiency) | Intent may be inferred from actions (bearing a loaded gun, forcing entry, immediate shooting) | No proof he entered with intent to assault | Affirmed: reasonable juror could infer intent from conduct (knocking, barging in, gun, immediate killing) |
| Exclusion of defense expert under Rule 702 | Court properly excluded Carroll because she lacked required training, licensure, APA‑accredited degree and forensic qualifications | Carroll was qualified and defense was prejudiced by exclusion; mistrial warranted | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper and mistrial not required; defendant allowed alternate expert testimony |
| Heat‑of‑passion manslaughter instruction | No evidentiary basis for provocation or reasonable heat of passion | Requested instruction supported by patient's testimony | Affirmed: no objective provocation shown; instruction not warranted |
| Brady/chain of custody/prior bad acts | State complied with discovery; chain gaps go to weight; restraining order and prior acts admissible to explain motive/context | State withheld cell phone, laptop, journal and failed to prove chain of custody; prior bad acts improperly admitted | Affirmed: defendant failed to show suppressed favorable evidence or prejudice; chain gaps did not show tampering; prior acts admissible and/or objection waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Templeton v. State, 725 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1998) (constructive breaking doctrine; invitation irrelevant when entry is for criminal purpose)
- Booker v. State, 716 So. 2d 1064 (Miss. 1998) (allegation of intent to commit an ulterior felony in burglary need not be as detailed as indictment for that felony)
- Carson v. State, 212 So. 3d 22 (Miss. 2016) (identity of victim of underlying felony not required in capital murder indictment)
- Fulgham v. State, 12 So. 3d 558 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (constructive breaking where entry was for unlawful purpose despite owner’s general invitation)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (gaps in chain of custody ordinarily affect weight, not admissibility)
- Hobgood v. State, 926 So. 2d 847 (Miss. 2006) (importance of proper qualification for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Flowers v. State, 773 So. 2d 309 (Miss. 2000) (prior acts admissible when integrally related and necessary to tell coherent story of events)