Carey v. State

Citations: 80 So. 3d 131; 2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 15; 2012 WL 48031Docket: No. 2010-KA-01275-COA

Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; January 9, 2012; Mississippi; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Leonard Carey was convicted of murdering Philip Charleston and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Hinds County Circuit Court. After his conviction, Carey filed a motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which was denied. On appeal, he contended that: 1) the circuit court improperly limited his cross-examination of witness Marcus Smith regarding events prior to Charleston's death; 2) the court also limited his cross-examination of Dr. Adele Lewis about Charleston's toxicology report; 3) the evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction; 4) the court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict; and 5) the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 

The court affirmed the conviction, stating no error was found. The facts indicate that on February 5, 2009, during a dice game dispute, Carey shot and killed Charleston, who was intoxicated and allegedly threatened Carey with a knife. Carey claimed he shot Charleston to scare him, not intending to kill him. Witness Marcus Smith, who witnessed part of the incident, stated he did not see a knife but observed Carey pointing a gun at Charleston. Smith's cross-examination regarding his prior knowledge of events was limited by the court, particularly concerning allegations of his purchasing alcohol for minors. The court noted that Carey failed to preserve this issue for appeal since the bench conference concerning Smith's examination was not transcribed and the arguments therein were not recorded, thereby waiving the right to challenge this limitation.

Carey contends that the circuit court improperly restricted the cross-examination of Dr. Adele Lewis regarding Charleston’s toxicology report. The court had previously granted a motion in limine by the State, preventing any mention of the toxicology report until it became relevant. Although Dr. Lewis could testify about the presence of cocaine and alcohol in Charleston’s system at his death, she was not permitted to discuss how these substances might have influenced Charleston's state of mind. The court's limitation on cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and it was determined that the ruling did not prejudice Carey’s defense since the jury was still informed of the drug presence.

Carey also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder conviction. He made a directed verdict motion that was denied but did not renew it after presenting his defense, thus waiving his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence presented before that point. Even if considered, the evidence, including Carey's admission to shooting Charleston and other testimonies indicating a lack of adequate provocation, was sufficient to support the conviction. The jury has the responsibility to assess credibility and weight of the evidence, and the findings did not overwhelmingly favor Carey. Therefore, both issues raised by Carey were deemed without merit.

Carey contends that the circuit court wrongly denied his motion for a directed verdict based on imperfect self-defense. The court emphasized that such motions must be specific; failure to do so precludes raising the issue on appeal. Carey did not specifically address imperfect self-defense in his motions, resulting in a procedural bar. Despite this, he argued that the State did not prove malicious intent, asserting he should be convicted of manslaughter instead. The court noted that imperfect self-defense involves an intentional killing without malice, stemming from a mistaken belief of necessity for self-defense.

Carey claimed self-defense against Charleston, who he alleged threatened him with a knife. However, the court pointed out that malice could be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon and highlighted that Carey admitted to shooting Charleston, with no witnesses supporting his claim of Charleston as the aggressor. The court concluded that the State had presented sufficient evidence of malicious intent.

Additionally, Carey argued that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence but was procedurally barred from this claim as it was not raised in his motion for a new trial. Even if considered, the court explained that conflicting testimonies do not constitute overwhelming evidence, as it is the jury's role to resolve credibility disputes. Ultimately, the court affirmed the murder conviction and life sentence, assessing all appeal costs to Hinds County.