Mixon v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Darryl Mixon's conviction for motor vehicle theft and his life sentence as a habitual offender. The court held that testimony concerning the victim's identification was admissible under the hearsay rules, that the indictment amendment was permissible because it concerned form rather than substance, and that the prosecutor's closing argument did not warrant a new trial.

Holdings

1. Testimony that Officer Catchings told Detective Wansley that Smith identified Mixon was not inadmissible hearsay because both Smith and Catchings testified and were available for cross-examination, and each part of the statements satisfied the applicable hearsay rule.
2. Removing the word "feloniously" from the motor-vehicle-theft indictment was a permissible amendment of form, not substance, because the indictment identified the charged offense and statutory provision and the amendment did not change the crime or prejudice or surprise Mixon.
3. The prosecutor's challenged closing argument did not require a mistrial or new trial because the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement, thereby avoiding prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony that one officer told a detective that Smith had identified Mixon constituted inadmissible hearsay or hearsay within hearsay.
2. Whether the State's in-trial amendment of the indictment to remove the word "feloniously" was an impermissible amendment of substance or was permissible as a formal amendment.
3. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument was sufficiently inflammatory or prejudicial to require a mistrial or new trial.

Disposition

affirmed