Corbin v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–KA–00678–SCT.,2010–KA–00678–SCT. |
| Citation | 74 So.3d 333 |
| Parties | Jules CORBIN v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Office of Indigent Appeals by Justin Taylor Cook, Leslie S. Lee, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by W. Glenn Watts, Scott Stuart, attorneys for appellee.
Before WALLER, C.J., LAMAR and PIERCE, JJ.
PIERCE, Justice, for the Court:
¶ 1. Jules Corbin, Tammy Louis, and James Henry, Jr. were involved in an automobile wreck that left Louis dead and Henry severely injured.1 Corbin was indicted for capital murder, aggravated assault, and felony fleeing the scene of an accident. However, he was convicted by a jury in Washington County Circuit Court of the lesser-included offense of murder, as well as aggravated assault and felony fleeing the scene. Corbin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, ten years for aggravated assault, and three years for felony fleeing. Aggrieved, Corbin appeals, and claims, among other things, that his Sixth–Amendment right to confrontation was violated. We agree and find that the error was not harmless as to the charges of murder and aggravated assault, but that it was harmless as to the charge of felony fleeing the scene of an accident. Thus, we reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
¶ 2. The following facts were gleaned from the testimony and evidence presented at trial. Louis and Corbin had lived together for two years prior to the automobile wreck that occurred on August 15, 2008. On the day in question, Corbin asked Louis if he could use her son's car, a gray Mercury Grand Marquis, so he could drive to Leland, Mississippi, and get money from his mother. 2 Later that afternoon, Louis began to get ready to go to a party with her friend, Henry. Louis and Henry left the house around 8 p.m. in a green, four-door Expedition.
¶ 3. Louis's daughter, Shakila, had been text-messaging her mother throughout the evening, when the texts from Louis suddenly stopped around 11 p.m. The police arrived shortly thereafter and told Shakila that her mother had been killed in a car wreck. Upon arriving at the wreck scene, Shakila saw her mother's Expedition “jammed into a pole.” Louis had passed away at the scene of the wreck, but Henry was taken to a local hospital. Eventually, he was transferred to the Regional Medical Center (“The Med”) in Memphis, Tennessee.
¶ 4. Demarcus Lott and Henry House were nearby when the wreck occurred. They both testified at trial to hearing a loud crash, and then seeing a gray Marquis smashed into the rear end of a green Expedition. Both Lott and House stated that they saw a man in a Marquis get out of his car, walk to the passenger side of the Expedition, take a dark-colored object with straps “like a purse” from the vehicle,3 and drive off. Lott testified that he had seen the man's face, and that the man was wearing a white shirt, jeans, and had “a cap on his head.” House did not see the man's face, but said that the man “had a fitted cap on, white T-shirt, [and] blue jeans.”
¶ 5. Meanwhile, Samantha Davenport and her husband, John Haggard, were en route to pick up Haggard's paycheck at a local casino, when Corbin flagged them down. Both Davenport and her husband testified at trial. Corbin told them that his car had been stolen, and that he needed a ride. The couple refused to give Corbin a ride. Within a few minutes, Corbin said he saw his car and ran off. Haggard stated that Corbin had looked nervous, as if “he was trying to hide something.” Additionally, both witnesses observed that Corbin had a dark-colored object with straps tucked under his shirt. Haggard stated that Corbin was wearing a white shirt and a cap.
¶ 6. Shortly thereafter, Corbin went to the Greenville police station and reported his car stolen. Since officers had received information that Corbin had been driving one of the cars involved in the wreck, they arrested Corbin and charged him, initially, with leaving the scene of an accident and burglary. A couple of days after his arrest, Corbin waived his Miranda rights and spoke with Investigator Gary Castleberry about the wreck.4 He told Castleberry that he “was involved in the accident,” but that “they [Louis and Henry] caused it.” Corbin further said that, once he had seen the driver of the vehicle, he had “turned around and began chasing them.” Corbin never admitted to hitting the Expedition with the car that he had been driving.
¶ 7. Approximately one month after the wreck, Castleberry received a phone call and learned that Henry, the driver of the green Expedition, was no longer on life support, and that he was able to speak about the wreck. Castleberry drove to Memphis, Tennessee, and recorded the following statement from Henry.
Q. Do you recall what happened the night of the accident?
A. Well, like I say, he pulled up on the side of us.
Q. You say he pulled up the [sic] side of you. Who?
A. Poo.
Q. Poo. Do you know Poo's given name?
A. I just call him Poo.5
...
Q. Now, what was said and what do you remember?
A. I asked her who it was. She said it was Poo. And she said go ahead on. So I went ahead on. He got in behind us on Gloster. He hit the car one more time.
Q. You say he was hitting the car?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. He was hitting the Expedition you were in. What was he driving?
A. He was in Mario's car, Mercury.
Q. Do you remember what color it was?
A. It was gray.
...
Henry died from the injuries he had sustained in the wreck approximately six months after the recorded interview. At trial, and over a hearsay objection by defense counsel, the tape was played for the jury and admitted into evidence.
¶ 8. At trial, Corbin testified in his own defense. He stated that he had borrowed the Marquis and had gone to Leland to “take care of some business.” Corbin claimed that, when he returned to Greenville, he went to a friend's house to smoke marijuana. Corbin said that when he went to leave the house, he couldn't find the car. Corbin stated that he flagged down Davenport and Haggard and asked them for a ride, which they refused. Corbin testified that he then walked to the police station and reported the car stolen. Corbin stated that he never “had a conversation” with Castleberry regarding his involvement in the wreck.
¶ 9. Corbin was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and felony fleeing the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, ten years for aggravated assault, and three years for felony fleeing the scene of an accident. On appeal, Corbin raises five issues, the first issue being that his Sixth–Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed the State to play the recorded statement by Henry. Because this issue is dispositive, we decline to address the other issues raised on appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶ 10. On appeal, Corbin claims that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the admission of the recording of Henry's statement, in violation of Crawford v. Washington.6 Corbin's trial counsel failed to make a Crawford objection regarding the admission of the statement, and Corbin now asks this Court to address the issue under the doctrine of plain error.7
¶ 11. “Under the doctrine of plain error, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant's ‘fundamental, substantive right.’ ” 8 A violation of the Confrontation Clause is a violation of a “fundamental, substantive right,” 9 which seriously affects the “fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 10 Therefore, we will address whether the admission of the recording of Henry's statement, which implicated Corbin, violated Corbin's right to confrontation, and if so, whether such error requires reversal.11
I. Whether Henry's prerecorded statement to police violated Corbin's constitutional right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
¶ 12. The United States Supreme Court has said:
[There] are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in the expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal.12
¶ 13. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” 13 Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution provides an almost identical safeguard. Thus, the admission of a testimonial statement of a witness who does not appear at trial is barred, unless that witness is unavailable, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.14 As noted in Crawford v. Washington, this bar only applies to statements that are “testimonial.” 15 And while the Supreme Court has declined to provide a definition of “testimonial,” it has said that “ ‘[t]estimony’ ... is typically ‘a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.’ ” 16 This necessarily includes, among others, “police interrogations” and “statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” 17
¶ 14. Henry's statement to Castleberry implicating Corbin as the driver who hit the Expedition and the person responsible for the wreck certainly qualifies as testimonial under the core class of statements enumerated in Crawford.18 The statement was such that an “objective witness” would reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Because Henry's statement was made for the purpose of assisting police with its investigation, the purpose was prosecutorial. Thus, the statement was testimonial, and should have been excluded.
¶ 15. Moreover,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Howell v. State
-
Howell v. State
...at trial is barred, unless that witness is unavailable, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Corbin v. State, 74 So. 3d 333, 338 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2011) (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006)). The Supreme Court has held that a testimonial stateme......
-
Buchanan v. State
...Violations of the confrontation clause "are subject to harmless-error analysis." Conners , 92 So. 3d at 684 (citing Corbin v. State , 74 So. 3d 333, 338 (Miss. 2011) ). This Court will affirm when, after reviewing the entire record, we can confidently find that "the constitutional error was......
-
Kuebler v. State
...Further, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Corbin v. State, 74 So.3d 333, 338–39 (¶ 13) (Miss.2011). Kuebler now argues that he was unconstitutionally restrained from informing the jury on his theory of the......