Duplantis v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-DP-01220,91-DP-01220 |
| Citation | 644 So.2d 1235 |
| Parties | David W. DUPLANTIS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Dannye L. Hunter, Jackson, for appellant.
Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Marvin L. White, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charlene R. Pierce, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
En Banc.
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 1991, twenty-three year old David Duplantis, along with K.C. Strickland, was arrested for the murder of Gary Thrash. The Newton County Grand Jury subsequently indicted Duplantis and Strickland for murder in the commission of a robbery in violation of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-19(2)(e). Duplantis was also indicted as an habitual offender pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 99-19-81. Severance and a change of venue were granted Strickland; Duplantis' motion for change of venue was denied. In December 1991, Duplantis was found guilty by a jury, adjudicated an habitual offender, and sentenced to death. Following denial of his motion for new trial Duplantis appealed to this Court, seeking review of the following issues:
PRE-TRIAL ISSUES
A. Whether the trial court's refusal to grant funds for independent experts to assist the defense violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections Fourteen, Twenty-six, and Twenty-eight of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
B. Whether the trial court's denial of a change of venue violated Duplantis' right to a fair trial under the Mississippi and United States Constitutions.
C. Whether Duplantis' statement and waiver of extradition should have been suppressed because obtained in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections fourteen and twenty-six of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
D. Whether the trial court's denial of Duplantis' motion for continuance was error which deprived him of his right to counsel, due process, and a fair trial under the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
E. Whether the trial judge's excusing of venire members and moving of venire members to the end of the jury selection list, without cause or explanation, violated the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and corresponding Sections of the Mississippi Constitution.
F. Whether the trial court's voir dire of prospective jurors regarding their ability to impose the death sentence was inadequate to reveal bias in favor of the death penalty.
G. Whether the trial court's refusal to allow counsel to voir dire jurors regarding their attitudes toward the death penalty violated Duplantis' rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections Fourteen, Twenty-six, and Twenty-eight of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
H. Whether striking venire members Ronnie Estes and Bobby Nichols for cause was justified or was in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section Twenty-six of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
I. Whether the trial court's refusal to remove for cause numerous jurors with relationships biased against Duplantis violated his right to an impartial jury and to a fair trial under the Mississippi and United States Constitutions.
J. Whether the State exercised peremptory challenges to remove African- and Native-Americans from the jury in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Sections Fourteen and Twenty-six of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
K. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence and argument of other crimes and wrongs in violation of the Mississippi Constitution, laws, and rules of evidence, and of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
L. Whether the introduction of inflammatory photographs of the victim without evidentiary purpose or probative value violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Mississippi Constitution, and Mississippi law.
M. Whether opinion testimony of Ron Smith failed to meet the standard for expert testimony and was therefore inadmissible and violative of Duplantis' Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and corresponding sections of the Mississippi Constitution.
N. Whether the State's failure to make timely discovery available to Duplantis violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, corresponding sections of the Mississippi Constitution, and Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rule of Circuit Court Practice 4.06.
O. Whether Duplantis' requests for lesser offense instructions were denied by the trial court in violation of Mississippi law and the Mississippi and Federal Constitutions.
P. Whether instruction S-5 was erroneously granted as it required the jury to acquit Duplantis of the greater charge before it could consider a lesser-included offense, in violation of the State and Federal due process clauses.
Q. Whether the prosecutor's comments in closing argument violated Duplantis' rights under the Federal and Mississippi Constitutions.
R. Whether the trial court's warning that the content of Duplantis' personal closing statement would decide whether the prosecution could attack his failure to testify is error in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and corresponding sections of the Mississippi Constitution.
S. Whether the trial court's failure to amend sentencing instruction S-1 prevented the jury from having a complete and accurate description of the law on sentencing in violation of Duplantis' rights under the Federal and State Constitutions.
T. Whether the trial court's amendment to sentencing instruction D-92 violated Duplantis' Federal and State Constitutional rights, misinformed the jury on the law, and prevented jurors from properly considering mitigating evidence.
U. Whether the language and form of the verdict are vague and misleading and do not reveal the accurate and thorough deliberation of the jury in sentencing Duplantis to death.
V. Whether failure of the trial court to instruct the jury that Duplantis was adjudicated an habitual offender violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section Twenty-six of Article Three of the Mississippi Constitution.
W. Whether the prosecutor's comments in closing argument violated Duplantis' rights under the Federal and Mississippi Constitutions.
X. Whether imposition of the death penalty against Duplantis, without sufficient finding or proof of his culpability for the victim's death, violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and corresponding sections of the Mississippi Constitution.
Y. Whether Duplantis' sentence of death is disproportionate.
Issue C, the trial court's failure to suppress Duplantis' statement, requires reversal of both guilt and sentencing phases; therefore, the remaining arguments presented by Duplantis are not addressed unless likely to occur on retrial or if some discussion or explanation is otherwise warranted.
II. THE FACTS
Ken Strickland and David Duplantis escaped from the Lauderdale County Jail on June 14, 1991, and were still at large on June 16, 1991. Ruth Ann Dean, who lived about a quarter of a mile from the house Charlene Thrash rented in Chunky, became concerned when she read in the Meridian Star on June 16, 1991, that the pair had escaped from the Lauderdale County Jail. 1 Dean's concern was prompted by the fact that Strickland's mother had previously rented the same house now rented by Charlene; Dean called Gary Thrash, Charlene's ex-husband, just after 10:00 a.m. on June 16, a Sunday, and asked him to check on the house.
When Gary Thrash failed to answer his pager on the afternoon of June 16, Robert Strickland, Gary's boss, asked his buddy, off-duty Deputy Sheriff Ron Davis, to accompany him to Charlene's house. Upon arriving at the house Davis and Strickland found a Nissan pickup owner's manual and Gary Thrash's glasses case in the driveway. Davis and Strickland each went to a different side of the house at that point, knocking and calling Gary's name, to no avail. Davis then went back to the rear door of the house, which was unlocked, and started into the house, where he was met by a dog. Davis called to Strickland, who identified the dog as Gary's, and the two men conferred for a moment before Davis entered the house again.
When he entered the house, Davis passed through the kitchen, proceeded into the living room, where he saw no one, and looked into an empty bedroom. Davis continued to a room adjacent to the bathroom and pushed the door open with his foot. As the door came open Davis saw "the body and the blood on the floor there." Startled, Davis backed away and returned to the rear door of the house where Strickland was waiting for him. Davis told Strickland he thought he'd found Gary, but he needed to go back to be sure.
The body was that of Gary Thrash, with a pool of blood about his head and the pockets of his shorts pulled inside out. Davis and Strickland then left the house, secured it, and called for law enforcement and ambulance personnel, the Mississippi Crime Lab, and the coroner. One of the burglar bars in the east window of the bedroom where Gary Thrash's body was found had been cut and bent out, providing access to the house.
Strickland and Duplantis had been in Charlene Thrash's house, as established by fingerprint and other evidence properly admitted at trial. After their stay at the Thrash house, Strickland and Duplantis traveled to Tennessee, where they were arrested by Tennessee authorities on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. State, No. 2000-DP-00507-SCT.
...State, 684 So.2d 625 (Miss.1996). Lanier v. State, 684 So.2d 93 (Miss.1996). Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846 (Miss.1995). Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 1994). Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1994). Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314 (Miss.1992). Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 117......
-
Bennett v. State, No. 2003-DP-00765-SCT.
...684 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1996). Lanier v. State, 684 So.2d 93 (Miss. 1996). Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846 (Miss.1995). Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 1994). Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1994). Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314 (Miss. 1992). Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171 (M......
-
Brawner v. State, No. 2002-DP-00615-SCT.
...684 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1996). Lanier v. State, 684 So.2d 93 (Miss. 1996). Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846 (Miss. 1995). Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 1994). Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894 (Miss. 1994). Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314 (Miss. 1992). Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171 (......
-
Walker v. State
...State, 684 So.2d 625 (Miss.1996). Lanier v. State, 684 So.2d 93 (Miss.1996). Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846 (Miss.1995). Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235 (Miss.1994). Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894 (Miss.1994). Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314 (Miss.1992). Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171 ......