Parker v. State

• Decision Date: 05 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2011–KA–01158–SCT.,2011–KA–01158–SCT.
• Citation: 119 So.3d 987
• Parties: Lester Lavon PARKER, Jr. a/k/a Lester Levon Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Lavon Parker v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

119 So.3d 987

Lester Lavon PARKER, Jr. a/k/a Lester Levon Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Parker, Jr. a/k/a Lester Lavon Parker

v.STATE of Mississippi.

No. 2011–KA–01158–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 6, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 2013.

Unconstitutional as Applied

West's A.M.C. § 47–7–3(1)(h)Office of State Public Defender by Mollie Marie McMillin, attorney for appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Laura Hogan Tedder, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. Fifteen-year-old Lester Lavon Parker Jr. was convicted in the Circuit Court of Copiah County, Mississippi, for the murder of his fifty-three-year-old grandfather, James Shelton. He was sentenced to serve the remainder of his “natural life” in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). On appeal, Parker challenges his conviction and sentence.

FACTS

¶ 2. In January 2002, James and Doris Shelton, Parker's grandparents, became his guardians. Carl Roberts, a family friend of the Sheltons, testified that they had a “[g]ood” relationship with Parker, provided him with a “Christian home[,]” and that Parker “was very fortunate to have as many people as he had in his life.” On October 23, 2010, Doris was killed in a tragic car accident, following which, James was awarded custody of Parker.

¶ 3. On January 23, 2011, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Parker went to Roberts's home to pick up two of Roberts's sons, who were to go hunting on James's property along with Parker and James.¹ Roberts testified that when Parker arrived, he “seemed to be the [person] we've always known.” ² At around 6:30 p.m., Parker dropped off Roberts's sons at their home and returned to his grandfather's home. According to Roberts, “about 30 minutes later, [Parker] come back ... upset, and Taylor, my son, come got me.... [W]hen he returned, [Parker] said somebody shot my Paw Paw.... [Parker] stayed and at that time I headed toward [James's] home.” While en route, Roberts called 911. With the 911 dispatcher on the line, Roberts entered the home, “and it was known that [James] was passed away, and ... I exited the house and waited on the officer.” According to Roberts, his “first impression” was that James had committed suicide.

¶ 4. At 7:40 p.m., Deputy Jeremy Thornton of the Copiah County Sheriff's Department arrived at the Shelton home. After Deputy Thornton observed the “gunshot wound to [James's] head[,]” he requested an investigator from the sheriff's department. Thereafter, Investigator Chad Sills went to the Robertses' home to talk with Parker, whom he viewed only as a witness, not a suspect. According to Investigator Sills, Parker “told me that it was an accident, he had shot [James] at the house is what [Parker] said.” Investigator Sills then brought Parker to the sheriff's department for a formal statement. According to Investigator Sills, Parker gave four different versions regarding the incident. Investigator Sills testified that:

[t]he first version was he stated that he went to drop the [Roberts] boys off at their house, come back to ... [James's] house, went into his room and got his shotgun, went into the bedroom and got another shotgun, pointed one shotgun to his head ... and pointed one at [James] and pulled the triggers. There was only one gun that had a shotgun shell in it he said, but he pulled both triggers and the one that had the shotgun shell was in the gun that was pointed at [James].

According to Investigator Sills, the second version:

is he said he thought the gun was on safe. He went to his room and got the gun and pointed it at [James] and thought it was on safe, pulled the trigger and it wasn't on safe and it went off and shot [James] in the back of the head.

Regarding the third version, Investigator Sills testified that:

[Parker] was upset at [James] and at his father because he ... was having to live there and he didn't want to live there anymore,[ ³] so he went and got the shotgun and was just going to point it at him just to prove a point. He wasn't meaning to pull the trigger or shoot at [James], he just wanted to point the gun at [James].

According to Investigator Sills, in the fourth version, Parker stated that:

his father was going to take his truck, his phone and send him to Chamberlain Hunt[ ⁴] if he decided to not live at [James's] residence anymore.... [A]nd he said he could not live there anymore, so he shot [James]. He thought that was the only way he was going to ... be able to move away from there.

¶ 5. On March 15, 2011, Parker was indicted for “wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, of his malice aforethought and without the authority of law, kill [ing] and murder[ing] [James], ... contrary to and in violation of [Mississippi Code] Section 97–3–19....” On July 20, 2011, the jury trial commenced. During the State's case-in-chief, photographs of the victim were admitted over Parker's objection. See ¶ 10 infra (discussing the photographs, objections, rulings, etc.). Following the State's case-in-chief, Parker moved for a directed verdict, which was denied by the circuit court. Parker, then sixteen years old, testified on his own behalf. According to Parker, when he informed James and his father ⁵ that he wished to live with his mother, they “decided that if I moved, that he would send me to Chamberlain Hunt and take all my stuff away.” According to Parker, this “[p]issed me off.” Parker testified that, upon leaving the Robertses' home, he already had made up his mind to return home and shoot James.⁶ According to Parker, he shot James when “I saw the corner of his eye look at me.” The jury found Parker guilty of murder, and the circuit court sentenced him to “natural life” in the custody of the MDOC.

¶ 6. Following the circuit court's denial of Parker's “Motion to Set Aside Sentences and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict of the Jury” and “Motion for a New Trial,” Parker filed a notice of appeal.

ISSUES

¶ 7. This Court will consider:

(1) Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of photographs of the victim.

(2) Whether Parker's murder conviction was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

(3) Whether Parker's sentence of life imprisonment violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment in light of the recent United States Supreme Court holding in Miller v. Alabama.

ANALYSIS

I. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of photographs of the victim.

¶ 8. This Court has stated that:

[a]dmission of photographs by the trial court is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Dampier v. State, 973 So.2d 221, 230 (Miss.2008). A decision favoring admissibility will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that judicial discretion. Id. The discretion of the trial judge is “almost unlimited ... regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value.”[ ⁷] Id. (quoting Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987)).

Chamberlin v. State, 989 So.2d 320, 340 (Miss.2008).

¶ 9. “[P]hotographs which are gruesome or inflammatory and lack an evidentiary purpose are always inadmissible as evidence.” McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 134–35 (Miss.1987) (citations omitted). But “[s]o long as a photograph has probative value and its introduction serves a meaningful evidentiary purpose, it may still be admissible despite being gruesome, grisly, unpleasant, or even inflammatory.” Chamberlin, 989 So.2d at 340 (quoting Dampier, 973 So.2d at 230). Regarding probative value, “[o]nly some ... is needed to support a judge's admission of a gruesome photograph.” King, 83 So.3d at 378 (citing Chamberlin, 989 So.2d at 340) (emphasis in original). As to “meaningful evidentiary purpose,” that requirement is satisfied when the photograph “(1) aids in describing the circumstances of the killing; (2) describes the location of the body or cause of death; or (3) supplements or clarifies witness testimony.” Chamberlin, 989 So.2d at 340 (citing Dampier, 973 So.2d at 230).See also King, 83 So.3d at 378;Barfield v. State, 22 So.3d 1175, 1181 (Miss.2009); Bennett v. State, 933 So.2d 930, 946 (Miss.2006). In sum, “[t]he question as to each photograph is whether it: (1) had probative value and (2) aided in describ[ing] the circumstances of the killing, described the location of the body and cause of death, or supplemented or clarified witness testimony.” Chamberlin, 989 So.2d at 341.

¶ 10. During the direct examination of Melissa Claire Nethery, a “crime scene analyst” with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, the State sought to introduce crime-scene photographs (Exhibits S–9 through S–14). As to Exhibit S–9, which the State referred to as “a picture of the crime scene[,]” counsel for Parker objected that:

[t]hey have a Power Point ... that they've described where all of the items are which better displays to the jury where she found these items rather than presenting a picture of the deceased. If the [S]tate wants to show where the items are collected, they did a better job with the diagram than this photograph.... I think this is unnecessary.

The circuit judge overruled Parker's objection, concluding that “it's prejudicial, but I can see the probative value of it[,]” and Exhibit S–9 was admitted into evidence. (Emphasis added.) Regarding Exhibits S–10 through S–14, which the State provided “sho[w] the entrance and exit wound [,]” ⁸ counsel for Parker objected that the photographs were “cumulative.” The circuit judge concluded that “I find there are issues in the case that those photographs help in explaining.... I'll overrule your objection.” Exhibits S–10 through S–14 were then admitted into evidence.

¶ 11. Parker argues that “[t]he only issue for the jury to determine was Parker's state of mind at the time of the shooting, specifically, whether he acted in the heat of passion. The photographs presented to the jury acted to inflame the passions of the jury and were...