Russell v. State (Mississippi 1995)

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Russell's capital-murder conviction and second death sentence after resentencing. It held that the trial court properly excused one prospective juror who was found to be unable to impose death, and that Russell suffered no constitutional injury from the treatment of another prospective juror who did not serve. The court also rejected or procedurally barred Russell's challenges to the sentencing evidence, jury instructions, alleged coercion, and prosecutorial conduct, and found the sentence supported, non-arbitrary, and proportionate.

Holding

Excusal of Charles Butts for cause. The trial court did not err in excusing Butts for cause. Viewed as a whole, the record supported the conclusion that the transcript had transposed the responses of Butts and another veniremember and that Butts was unable to impose the death penalty.

Effect of the allegedly erroneous exclusion of Butts. Even assuming Butts was erroneously excluded, the exclusion did not require reversal because the jury and alternates were selected before the venire position at which Butts would have appeared was reached, making it speculative that he would have served.

Failure to excuse Donald Bond. Russell was not entitled to relief because the record did not show that Bond would automatically impose death, and Bond did not serve on the jury or force Russell to use a peremptory challenge.

Admission of prior sworn testimony from unavailable witnesses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding three witnesses unavailable and admitting their prior guilt-phase testimony at resentencing.

Admission of prior-conviction records and violent-escape evidence. The trial court properly admitted the correctional records, indictments, and related materials concerning Russell's prior convictions, including the indictment showing that his escape was accomplished through force or violence, to prove the statutory aggravating circumstances.

Evidence of the murder's details and the Enmund findings. The State could introduce evidence of the actual killing and the sentencing jury could consider the detailed circumstances of the offense because that evidence was relevant and necessary to establish the required culpability findings for a death sentence, not to prove an unsubmitted especially heinous aggravator.

Russell v. State

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by