Opinion

Galloway v. State

  • 122 So. 3d 614
  • 2013 Miss. LEXIS 328
  • 2013 WL 2436653
Court
Mississippi Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 6, 2013
Status
Published
Author
Dickinson
On the bench
Chandler, Coleman, Dickinson, King, Kitchens, Lamar, Pierce, Randolph, Waller
Cited by
135 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.0%

stating “the importance of making a clear record to allow proper review of speedy-trial claims”

How later courts described this case

  • stating “the importance of making a clear record to allow proper review of speedy-trial claims”
  • "A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors [that he] invited or induced ...."
  • as of 2013, "[t]he United States Supreme Court has not decided whether Biggers applies to an in-court identification not preceded by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification"
  • "A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DICKINSON,

Presiding Justice, dissenting:

¶ 254. During deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge a note asking, “Does murder escalate the sex automatically to sexual battery?” The jury obviously wondered whether — because there was a murder involved — conduct that did not amount to sexual battery should be “escalated” to sexual battery. The clear, unequivocal, indisputable answer to the jury’s question was “no.”

¶ 255. In order to find capital murder based on sexual battery, the elements of the alleged sexual battery must be established, regardless of the murder. Rather than assisting the jurors, the trial judge allowed them to convict Galloway without an adequate understanding of a crucial element of capital murder. For this reason, I must dissent.

¶ 256. If the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Galloway’s conduct met the elements of sexual battery, there would have been no reason for them to inquire about “escalating” that conduct to sexual battery. It is no answer — as the majority finds — to simply refer the jurors to the jury instructions — the source of their confusion to begin with.

¶ 257. Since the trial judge refused to clarify 9 the instructions for the clearly-confused jury, I would reverse Galloway’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

KITCHENS AND KING, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.

. Girton v. State, 446 So.2d 570, 572 (Miss.1984) ("Unless it is necessary to give another instruction for clarity or to cover an omission, it is necessary that no further instruction be given.”) (emphasis added).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.