Eskridge v. State, 1999-DP-00769-SCT.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. 1999-DP-00769-SCT.,1999-DP-00769-SCT.
• Citation: 765 So.2d 508
• Parties: Roderick ESKRIDGE v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

765 So.2d 508

Roderick ESKRIDGE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 1999-DP-00769-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 29, 2000.

Rehearing Denied August 24, 2000.

Leland H. Jones, III, Greenwood, Attorney for Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Marvin L. White, Jr., Leslie S. Lee, Attorney for Appellee.

En Banc.

McRAE, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. This capital murder and armed robbery case was tried on the sentencing phase after a guilty plea was entered by Appellant Roderick Eskridge ("Eskridge"). Eskridge was convicted on January 26, 1999, in Attala County¹, Mississippi and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Eskridge raises one issue, namely that the trial court failed to allow the testimony of a psychologist who had not examined him but was expected to testify concerning what life would be like for a minor in prison for life without the possibility of parole. We rejected similar arguments in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss.1991) and Wilcher v. State, 697 So.2d 1123 (Miss. 1997) and do so again today, thereby affirming his conviction and sentence.

I.

¶ 2. On December 1, 1997, in Grenada County, Mississippi, Jackie Hardiman asked Terry Yates and Krishun Williams to give her a ride home. On the way, Yates picked up three other people, one of which was Eskridge. Eskridge pointed a gun at Hardiman's head and told her to give him all the money she had, which she promptly did. Hardiman was then driven to Grenada Lake and ordered to remove all of her clothes. Hardiman fled into the woods as gunshots were fired. Two campers in the area gave Hardiman clothes and notified police.

¶ 3. On the same night, the body of Cheryl Johnson was found in the nearby woods. Johnson was 34 years old and mentally retarded. Johnson had been shot in the chest with an exit wound in her back. An autopsy revealed that the barrel of the gun would have been in contact with the skin when fired. It was also the opinion of the pathologist that Johnson would have remained conscious for 15-20 minutes after being shot.

¶ 4. Investigators interviewed Krishun Williams, who had last seen Johnson. As a result, Derek Williams was arrested, followed by Eskridge. Eskridge was arrested at his girlfriend's apartment, and a .32 caliber pistol with ammunition were found on the dresser in the bedroom. Ballistics tests showed that the gun was the one used to kill Johnson.

¶ 5. Eskridge was advised of his rights and gave two statements to the police. He admitted that after robbing Jackie Hardiman, they kidnapped Cheryl Johnson and went to her mother's house to get some money. Afterwards, they drove into the woods and forced Johnson out of the car, robbed her and forced her to undress. In Eskridge's second statement he admitted that he had the gun, took off Johnson's bra and robbed her of her money. When Johnson followed Eskridge back to the car asking for a ride home, Eskridge turned around and shot her in the chest.

¶ 6. The driver of the car, Terry Yates, confirmed that Eskridge had the gun and shot Johnson. He stated that Johnson pleaded for Eskridge not to kill her when he shot her. He also stated that Hardiman and Johnson were targeted because it was the first of the month and they were expecting support checks. According to Yates, the money stolen from Johnson was used to purchase marijuana for the whole group. Williams also told police that Eskridge was the triggerman and received the money from Johnson, as well as being the person who held the gun to Hardiman's head.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Only if the trial judge abuses this discretion will his decision be reversed. Underwood v. State, 708 So.2d 18, 31 (Miss.1998).

III.

A. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW A DEFENSE EXPERT IN PSYCHOLOGY TO TESTIFY AT SENTENCING CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF A LIFE SENTENCE ON YOUNG OFFENDERS.

¶ 8. Eskridge voluntarily pled guilty to armed robbery and capital murder. Therefore, his only assignment of error on appeal relates to the sentencing phase of his trial. Eskridge alleges that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the testimony of a psychologist regarding "the emotional, psychological and physical effects of imprisonment upon an individual."

¶ 9. During the sentencing stage of Eskridge's trial, the defense offered the testimony of Dr. Michael Whelan, a psychologist from Greenwood, Mississippi. His testimony was offered, Eskridge argues, because his capacity as a psychologist for the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman gave him a unique perspective into the lives of long-term prisoners.

¶ 10. Eskridge argues that "[e]xpert testimony is admissible where it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in evidence." Simmons v. State, 722 So.2d 666, 672 (Miss.1998)(citing Lentz v. State, 604 So.2d 243, 246 (Miss.1992)).

In considering the admissibility of an expert's testimony, we ask: "[i]s the field of expertise one in which it has been scientifically established that due investigation and study in conformity with techniques and practices generally accepted within the field will produce a valid opinion? Where the answer to this question is in the affirmative, we generally allow expert testimony."

Wilson v. State, 574 So.2d 1324, 1334 (Miss.1990)(quoting House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 822 (Miss.1984)). Eskridge points out that House also provides that "[i]ndeed, within a wide range of contexts we have allowed expert opinion testimony from properly qualified psychiatrists and psychologists." House, 445 So.2d at 822.

¶ 11. Eskridge contends that under a plain reading of M.R.E. 702, the proffered testimony of Dr. Whelan was relevant to a factual determination of the sole issue in this case: whether to impose the death penalty upon Eskridge. Eskridge claims that the inadmissibility ruling was in error and constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

¶ 12. The State submits that Dr. Whelan's status as an expert in psychology is immaterial and the proffered testimony irrelevant. It points to the explanation defense counsel gave regarding the nature of Dr. Whelan's testimony to the trial court:

BY MR. STUCKEY [for Eskridge]: Now, I have subpoenaed—the defense has subpoenaed Dr. Whelan to testify in generalities, because he has not examined the defendant or any records of the defendant. He would testify to the mental, emotional consequences of someone sentenced to a long term in the penitentiary. What effect that has on that person mentally, emotionally. How that person operates and can operate on a daily basis knowing that he would never be released from the penitentiary. That type of testimony all in a effort to somehow be able to compare what a life without parole sentence is to a death sentence. That would be the purpose of this testimony.

BY THE COURT: Have you got any authority for that type of testimony?

BY MR. STUCKEY: I have looked, and I can't find any.

BY MR. EVANS [for the State]: May I proceed, Your Honor? Our response to this is this is very similar to the Wilcher case. In that case the court said the defendant is not entitled to introduce photographs of Parchman, death row or maximum security units and that testimony of former prison officials describing the harshness of life sentence in the penitentiary. The evidence has no relation to the defendant's character, his record or circumstances of the crime. And I say this would be almost identical type testimony to that and therefore it would not be relevant. And this is Wilcher v. State, 697 So.2d 1123.

¶ 13. The trial court found this testimony to be analogous to that in Wilcher and declared it inadmissible. The State submits that this type of testimony is clearly irrelevant. Such testimony would only be admissible if it relates to the character and background of the defendant and the circumstance surrounding the crime that would be mitigating. See Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 976, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 2637, 129 L.Ed.2d 750, 762 (1994)(circumstances of a particular offense are constitutionally indispensable parts of the process of inflicting the penalty of death); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). However, there is no proof here that such testimony would fall into that category.

¶ 14. In Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 147 (Miss.1991), Hansen argued that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow opinion testimony of a prison counselor that Hansen would adapt well to prison life in the future. The counselor had become acquainted with Hansen while Hansen was incarcerated in the Florida correctional system. Hansen cited Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 5, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 90 L.Ed.2d 1, 7 (1986), wherein the Court wrote:

[E]vidence that the defendant would not pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated) must be considered potentially mitigating.

While this Court took note of its prior acceptance of this rule, it held that speculative opinion testimony of how a defendant may adapt to prison life in the future is not admissible unless the expert is qualified and accepted in the field of predicting future behavior. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 147.

¶ 15. In the present case, Dr. Whelan was not offered as an expert in predicting future behavior. The proffer stated that he would testify only to generalities. In addition, unlike the prison counselor in Hansen, Dr. Whelan had never even examined Eskridge or any of his records. Such testimony would have been irrelevant. Taking into consideration that Dr. Whelan was not qualified as an expert in predicting future behavior and had not even met with Eskridge, his testimony would not have assisted the trier of fact in making a determination of fact or understand the evidence pursuant to M.R.E. 702.

IV.

CONCLUSION

¶ 16. After confessing to the robbery and killing of Cheryl Johnson to his girlfriend,...