Hall v. State
Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
Docket Number | NO. 2014-KA-00986-SCT,2014-KA-00986-SCT |
Citation | 201 So.3d 424 |
Parties | Eddie Hall a/k/a Eddie Terrell Hall v. State of Mississippi |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
DONALD W. BOYKIN, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
BEFORE DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, P.JJ., AND KITCHENS, J.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
RANDOLPH
,
¶ 1. The motion for rehearing is granted. The previous opinion of this Court is withdrawn, and the following opinions are substituted therefor. Eddie Hall was convicted of murdering Johnny “Tubby” Hubbard in the Black Cat community of Covington County, Mississippi. The jury received eyewitness testimony that when a fight broke out at the end of a horse show, Hall retrieved a gun from his trailer and shot Tubby twice as Tubby attempted to break up the fight and leave the scene. On appeal, Hall argues that the judge made errors during the jury selection process and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm Hall's conviction and life sentence.
¶ 2. While qualifying the jury, the judge asked potential jurors, The judge's exchange with one prospective juror went as follows:
¶ 3. As the judge continued to screen potential jurors, the State requested leave to approach the bench, and the following sidebar conversation took place:
The sidebar conversation concluded and qualification of jurors resumed.
¶ 4. After the jury was selected, testimony commenced. Two eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting were Rufus Hubbard and Michael Hubbard, the victim's uncle and first cousin, respectively. They related that a horse show was held in the Black Cat community of Covington County on September 16, 2012. Rufus met Hall for the first time the day of the show. Michael had known Hall for six or seven years. At twilight, a fight broke out among a group of fifty to one hundred people after they returned from a trail ride. Hall retrieved a revolver from his trailer and fired it into the air, instructing people to leave immediately. Tubby, who was attempting to help break up the fight, got into his truck and started to drive away. But Hall evidently had taken offense at Tubby, for reasons unclear in the record. After shouting something to the effect of “[t]hat sumbitch hit my old lady,” Hall fired a shot into the windshield of Tubby's truck before walking around and firing a second shot at Tubby through the passenger side.1 The first shot grazed Tubby's cheek. The second shot hit his upper arm. Michael testified that he confronted Hall and asked “what's going on?” Hall replied “you want to get shot too?” Tubby fled the truck and ran into the woods. Hall then shouted something to the effect of “let's go get the sumbitch, he went in the woods.” Hall led several others to chase after Tubby. Michael and another individual were able to reach Tubby first and take him to the hospital. Tubby died at the hospital due to blood loss from the gunshot wound
in his upper arm. Hall disappeared for two days before turning himself in to the sheriff. The gun was never recovered.
¶ 5. Investigator Pamela Wade-Smith of the Covington County Sheriff's Office testified during both the State's and the defendant's cases-in-chief. She had taken photographs of the crime scene and had obtained multiple witness statements. After the State had rested and during the defendant's direct examination of Wade-Smith, defense counsel provided Wade-Smith with a document(s) referencing witness statements and stated, After she complied with his request, defense counsel questioned her about the statements she had taken from witnesses:
¶ 6. After Wade-Smith was tendered for cross-examination, the State sought to have Wade-Smith read from the document(s) which had been provided to her previously by defense counsel. The defense objected to the statement as hearsay and the Court sustained the objection. The State then asked, without objection:
¶ 7. On redirect, the defense asked the following questions:
¶ 8. Hall now appeals his conviction of murder and life sentence.
¶ 9. Hall argues for the first time on appeal that the trial court erred in instructing Juror Number 1 to act as foreperson, in failing to ask each potential juror if he or she had served on a jury within the last two years, in failing to require potential jurors to completely fill out the jury questionnaire prescribed by Mississippi Code Section 13–5–1
, and in automatically dismissing potential jurors who answered in the positive to the question “have any of you ever been convicted of a crime that is punishable by imprisonment in this state's penitentiary, or any other state's penitentiary, or in the Federal Court system?”
¶ 10. Hall has forfeited his right to argue these issues on appeal by failing to object contemporaneously below. Our rule is well-settled that a defendant's failure to object bars that defendant from raising the issue on appeal. See M.R.E. 103(a)
. “We will not hold a trial court ‘in error on appeal for a matter not presented to it for decision.’ ” Moffett v. State , 49 So.3d 1073, 1101 (Miss. 2010) (internal citation omitted). See Miss. R. Evid. 103(a)(1). Procedural bar aside, the outcome would be no different.
¶ 11. Hall claims the trial judge violated his “constitutional rights to an impartial jury as guaranteed him by the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution
.” Admitting that no contemporaneous objection was made, Hall asks this Court to consider this error under the plain-error doctrine.
¶ 12. While Rule 103(a)(1)
serves as a bar, if a defendant fails to object, Rule 103(d) also allows that this Court may take notice of plain errors, if those errors affect a defendant's substantial rights. M.R.E. 103(d). For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been “an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Brown v. State , 995 So.2d 698, 703 (Miss. 2008) (quoting United States v. Atkinson , 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936) ). “Prejudice often is lacking when the weight of the evidence against a defendant is overwhelming.” Moffett v. State , 156 So.3d 835, 870 (Miss. 2014), reh'g denied (July 31, 2014) (citations omitted). Two eyewitnesses testified that Hall was the shooter. Given that the weight of the evidence of Hall's guilt was overwhelming, we discern no manifest miscarriage of justice or that the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding was seriously affected.
¶ 13. Personal privilege exemptions under Mississippi Code Section 13–5–25
“are not mandatory and must be asserted by the individual.” Spires v. State , 10 So.3d 477, 482 (Miss. 2009) ; Miss. Code Ann. § 13–5–25 (Rev. 2012). Judges also may require jurors who have sat on a jury within the last two years to serve if there is a lack of potential jurors. Miss. Code Ann. § 13–5–25.
¶ 14. The record makes clear that some jurors failed to answer a question related to whether they previously had sat on a criminal jury, but that omission was corrected by direct questioning of the venire at voir dire .
requires that jurors be questioned about prior convictions. Miss. Code Ann. § 13–5–1 (Rev. 2012). The judge asked if anyone had a conviction resulting in imprisonment. The petit juror's answer of yes and explanation that he previously had been convicted of drug violations in federal court fulfilled the requirement of the statute to dismiss this juror.
¶ 16. While the trial court erred in appointing the jury foreperson, we find that the trial court either did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ward v. Colom
...to ‘basic concepts of the criminal justice system’ by ‘letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.’ "); Hall v. State , 201 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2016) (Randolph, P.J., for the Court).30 This Court has held that where the proclamations of the Legislature that touch on the judiciary......
-
Jones v. State
...the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. (¶ 14) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hall v. State , 201 So. 3d 424, 428 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2016) ). "To determine if plain error has occurred, this Court must determine if the trial court has deviated from ......
-
McLaughlin v. State
...in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Hall v. State , 201 So. 3d 424, 428 (¶12) (Miss. 2016). "To determine if plain error has occurred, this Court must determine if the trial court has deviated from ......
-
Spiers v. State
...... . ¶12. On cross-examination, MM testified that she went to bed at. 10:00 p.m. on September 9, 2019. MM agreed that she cannot. see the front door from her bedroom nor can her bedroom door. be seen from the front door. MM stated that the hall light. was on when Spiers came into the home. When asked, "How. would Mr. Spiers know which door was yours[?]" MM. responded, "I don't know. I guess the only way that. I can think of is that he heard me open and shut it. Or maybe. he saw me. But I didn't see him." MM ......