Coleman v. State
| Citation | 697 So.2d 777 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-KA-00670-SCT,95-KA-00670-SCT |
| Parties | Johnny Earl COLEMAN v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Keith Roberts, Pascagoula, for Appellant.
Michael C. Moore Attorney General, Jolene M. Lowry, Sp. Asst. Attorney General, Jackson, for Appellee.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and McRAE and MILLS, JJ.
In the early morning of August 12, 1994, Officers Alan Bond and Steve Patterson of the Biloxi Police Department were on patrol on McDonnell Avenue. They noticed a white truck with a camper over the back parked in the southbound lane with its lights off. As they approached, Johnny Earl Coleman came from behind the truck, got in and started to drive away. The officers pulled him over, and as they got out of the patrol car, Coleman exited the truck and walked toward them. While Officer Patterson spoke with Coleman, Officer Bond approached the truck to check for any unseen suspects inside. When he shined his flashlight through a window in the camper, he discovered a body lying in the bed of the truck. Officer Bond turned back toward Coleman, who was already backing away, and told him to freeze. Coleman took off running, and the officers pursued him into a wooded area, then returned to the truck when they couldn't find Coleman. An eleven-hour search did not reveal the whereabouts of Coleman.
The body was identified by fingerprints as Sheila Ann Vargas, a known prostitute in the area. A forensic pathologist testified that Vargas had died as a result of strangulation. The drawstring from her shirt had been wrapped twice around her throat, and there was also evidence of manual strangulation. The autopsy revealed that Vargas had engaged in anal intercourse prior to her death, and when her body was discovered, she was wearing a swimsuit and shorts which were pulled to the side revealing her genital area. In a tape-recorded statement at the Biloxi Police Department, Coleman admitted to paying Vargas for sex on the night of August 11 at around 9:40 p.m., but he denied any involvement in her murder and denied having
anal sex with her. Coleman stated that Vargas pulled her swimsuit and shorts to the side to have sex instead of removing her clothes. Coleman testified that on the night of Vargas's death, he left his house in his girlfriend's truck, owned by her father, to get something to eat for himself and his girlfriend. On his way, an unidentified white man darted out in front of the truck, and Coleman hit him. Since Coleman did not have his driver's license with him, he did not want the man to call the police. Coleman stated that the man agreed not to notify the police if Coleman would give him a ride. According to Coleman's version of the story, the man put what he thought was a duffle bag in the back of the truck before getting into the cab. When Coleman dropped the man off by Biloxi High School, Coleman agreed to come back for him on his way back home to drive him somewhere else, so the man left what Coleman thought was his duffle bag in the back of the truck. Coleman testified that he then drove away and had pulled over on the side of McDonnell Avenue to go to the bathroom when the patrol car approached. He stated that he did not know that Vargas's body was in the back of the truck until Officer Bond shined the flashlight into the camper. When he saw her head, Coleman said that he got scared and ran. However, Investigator Larry Murphy with the Biloxi Police Department testified that he believed that Coleman ran, because he knew that the body was in the back of the truck. Murphy stated that Coleman would not have been able to see Vargas's body from where he was standing when Officer Bond discovered the body. Coleman voluntarily surrendered to police the next day and was arrested for murder.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE, TESTING OF EVIDENTIAL
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be grounds for reversal unless shown to have resulted in manifest injustice. Atterberry v. State, 667 So.2d 622, 631 (Miss.1995) (citations omitted).
The standard of review in Mississippi on this issue is as follows: to reverse, the trial court's denial of expert assistance must be an abuse of discretion 'so egregious as to deny [the defendant] due process and where [the defendant's] trial was thereby rendered fundamentally unfair.' Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So.2d 878, 883 (Miss.1991). See Johnson v. State, 529 So.2d 577, 590 (Miss.1988). "Undeveloped assertions" that expert assistance will be helpful are insufficient. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 550 (Miss.1990).
Hunt v. State, 687 So.2d 1154 (Miss.1996).
Coleman claims that he was misled by the State into believing that they were conducting DNA tests on samples found on and in the victim's anus. During arguments on the defendant's motion for DNA testing on April 14 and motion for a new trial on June 19, Coleman's attorney stated that a detective testified at the preliminary hearing that the State was having DNA testing conducted on semen taken from the victim's body at the Mississippi Crime Lab. The State responded that Coleman could not be misled about DNA testing being done, because the Mississippi Crime Lab has never been qualified to do DNA testing, so the detective must have only been referring to serology testing.
When Coleman requested a continuance and funds to test the samples himself, the trial judge initially was going to reluctantly grant his motion "to give everybody the benefit of the doubt." However, when the judge informed Coleman's attorney that he refused to count the extensive time required for testing against the State for speedy trial purposes, Coleman's attorney offered the solution of suppressing the State's serology evidence along with the denial of DNA testing, pursuant to the discovery violation remedies Coleman did not make a motion to have DNA testing conducted until five days before trial. Coleman's attorney claims that he was relying on the detective's testimony from the preliminary hearing that the State would conduct DNA testing. However, there is nothing in the record to support his assertion, because there is not a transcript from the preliminary hearing, and the State denies that their detective misled Coleman.
set out in Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19, 23-24 (Miss.1983). The State argues that the trial court properly overruled Coleman's motion for DNA testing in light of the compromise reached by the court at the defense attorney's suggestion. Considering that Coleman's motion was made only five days before the trial, and noting the time and monetary cost involved in DNA testing, the State argues that the trial court correctly overruled Coleman's motion for DNA testing.
In his dissent in Box, Justice Robertson set out guidelines for alleviating prejudice resulting from a discovery violation, outlined in U.C.R.C.C.P. 4.06(i) at the time of Coleman's trial, now incorporated into U.R.C.C.C. 9.04(I). Box, 437 So.2d at 23-24. Rule 4.06(i) and Rule 9.04(I) read in pertinent part as follows:
If during the course of trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed to the defense as required by these rules, and the defense objects to the introduction for that reason, the court shall act as follows:
(1) Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness, to examine the newly produced documents, photographs or other evidence; and
(2) If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court should, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial.
(3) The court shall not be required to grant either a continuance or mistrial for such a discovery violation if the prosecution withdraws its efforts to introduce such evidence.
U.C.R.C.C.P. 4.06(i); U.R.C.C.C. 9.04(I). Box and Rules 4.06(i) and 9.04 do not apply to this case, because here the State did not withhold evidence, and Coleman's assertion is that the DNA evidence would be exculpatory, not prejudicial. See Parker v. State, 606 So.2d 1132, 1141 (Miss.1992). However, in light of the circumstances surrounding the failure to conduct DNA testing in this case, this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to exclude the State's serology evidence instead of granting Coleman a continuance for time to conduct DNA testing. The fact that Coleman's attorney proposed this alternative especially weighs against him on this issue. The trial court's decision, though inappropriately based upon Box, was an equitable compromise and did not result in manifest injustice or render Coleman's trial fundamentally unfair.
Coleman asserts that the DNA testing would have exonerated him, because the semen was taken from the rectal area, and Coleman denies having had anal intercourse with Vargas. He argues that the autopsy report and the testimony at trial suggested that Vargas engaged in anal intercourse immediately prior to her death, so that if the semen found in her rectum was not Coleman's then he would be exonerated.
The State responds by arguing that DNA testing would not have been particularly helpful in this case, because there was no way to show that the semen collected belonged to the murderer. Coleman admitted to having sex with the victim on the day of her death, and the victim was a known prostitute. As a result, the State argues, the DNA testing would not add weight to either side's argument, no matter what the results of the DNA tests showed, because the semen could have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. King, Civil Action No. 5:04cv284-DCB-MTP.
...given in this case, the trial court did not commit any error in allowing these instructions to be given. See Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997) ("In determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must be read ......
-
Watts v. State, 96-DP-01030-SCT.
...This Court considers whether the instructions given to the jury, read as a whole, fairly announce the law of the case. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss. 1997). Read together, the instructions fairly advise the jury that the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors is no......
-
Burns v. State
...that at the time the crime was committed, "Mr. Burns may have been diminished capacity to some extent." The State cites Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss. 1997), in support of the proposition that, "[d]etermination of whether the State must pay for an expert witness for an indigent......
-
Edwards v. State, 97-DP-00566-SCT.
...(Miss.1995) to support his argument. s 85. This Court's standard of review in looking at jury instructions was stated in Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777 (Miss.1997). "In determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must b......