White v. State
127 So. 3d 170, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 577, 2013 WL 5946157 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding a defense witness solely for violating a sequestration order without first determining if the violation caused probable prejudice to the opposing party or involved connivance by the defense. Furthermore, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction embodying the 'Castle Doctrine' if there is sufficient evidence to raise a question as to whether the incident occurred on the immediate premises of their dwelling, even if the location is a 'common' driveway not shared by the victim.
Facts:
- Eboni White and Danielle Newsome, former friends, lived in trailer homes across the street from one another near Alcorn State University.
- Newsome accused White of failing to stop for Newsome's child's school bus, after which Newsome began a 'campaign of harassment' against White, including verbal threats.
- Approximately one week after the bus incident, White filed a harassment complaint against Newsome with the Claiborne County Sheriff's Office.
- On the morning of November 12, 2009, Newsome repeatedly yelled threats at White’s trailer for approximately 15-20 minutes, demanding White come outside and preventing her from leaving.
- White, unable to reach her family for help, eventually contacted her father, who advised her to go to the courthouse for a restraining order and to bring home her handgun.
- White exited her trailer with her handgun in her backpack, intending to go to her vehicle, which was parked in her driveway.
- Newsome crossed the street, approached White's vehicle, blocked White's access to it, and continued to confront her.
- White stated that Newsome's hand came up with a silver object, which White believed to be a weapon, at which point White drew her handgun and shot Newsome several times.
- Newsome died from multiple gunshot wounds, and no weapons were found on her body.
Procedural Posture:
- Eboni White was indicted for murder by a grand jury.
- White filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging improper influence on the grand jury, which the trial court denied.
- A three-day trial was held in September 2010 in Claiborne County Circuit Court.
- The jury found White guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
- The trial judge sentenced White to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
- White’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial was denied.
- White appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, raising several issues, including the exclusion of her expert witness and the denial of her proposed jury instructions.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed White's conviction in an eight-to-two decision.
- White appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on the issues of whether the trial court erred by excluding Ricky Thompson’s testimony and by denying White’s jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding a defense witness solely for violating a witness sequestration order without determining whether the violation caused probable prejudice to the State or involved connivance by the defense? 2. Is a criminal defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the Castle Doctrine when there is sufficient evidence in the record to suggest the incident occurred on the immediate premises of their dwelling, even if the location is a 'common' driveway not shared by the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Pierce, Justice
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Ricky Thompson’s testimony solely for a violation of the sequestration rule. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 615 and relevant precedent establish that the exclusion of a witness is a severe sanction that should only be imposed if the testimony will result in probable prejudice to the opposing party and there has been connivance by the witness or counsel to violate the rule, or an intentional, knowing waiver of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right. The trial court here excluded Thompson without determining the prejudicial effect of the violation, simply stating that if he was in the courtroom, he would not be allowed to testify. More appropriate sanctions include full cross-examination on the violation or instructing the jury to consider the violation when evaluating credibility. Yes, White was entitled to a jury instruction on the Castle Doctrine, as the trial court erred in refusing to submit one. Under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(3), a person using defensive force is presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm if the person against whom force was used was unlawfully and forcibly entering or had entered a dwelling or its immediate premises. Evidence at trial indicated the incident took place in the immediate vicinity of White's home, right next to her vehicle, in an area described as a "common driveway." However, this driveway was only common to residents who shared it, which did not include Newsome, who lived across the street. This raised a question for the jury as to whether Newsome was trespassing on the "immediate premises" of White's dwelling. Because there was more than a mere scintilla of proof to support White's theory of self-defense under the Castle Doctrine, she was entitled to the instruction. The combined errors warrant reversal for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case strengthens the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to present witnesses on their behalf, establishing a high bar for excluding a witness based on a sequestration violation. It clarifies that such exclusion is an abuse of discretion without a showing of probable prejudice or defense connivance, reinforcing alternative remedies like cross-examination. Additionally, the decision expands the understanding of the 'Castle Doctrine' to include immediate premises like driveways, even if 'common,' when the victim has no right to be there, thus ensuring defendants can receive appropriate jury instructions tailored to their self-defense theory.
