Brown v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Grim v. State

    102 So. 3d 1073 (Miss. 2012)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a supervisor, reviewer, or other analyst involved may testify in place of the primary analyst where that person was actively involved in the production of the report and had intimate knowledge of analyses even though [he or] she did not perform the tests first hand."

    ¶ 19. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.

  2. Grim v. State

    NO. 2008-CT-01920-SCT (Miss. Oct. 18, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    ¶19. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So. 2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.

  3. Bufford v. State

    191 So. 3d 755 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ 37. “The standard of review for admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 860 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Debrow v. State, 972 So.2d 550, 552 (¶ 6) (Miss.2007) ). “Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” Jenkins v. State, 102 So.3d 1063, 1065 (¶ 7) (Miss.2012) (citing Smith v. State, 25 So.3d 264, 269 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) ).

  4. Grim v. Fisher

    816 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that " Bullcoming does not clearly establish" under what circumstances "the prosecution can introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification by one analyst—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact ... — through the in-court testimony of a technical reviewer," where the technical reviewer signed the report and was more involved in the testing and reporting than was the witness in Bullcoming

    Id. at 1079–80 (quoting McGowen, 859 So.2d at 340).The Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that, in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008), the Mississippi Court of Appeals had correctly applied the principles from McGowen. In Brown the testifying analyst was the laboratory manager rather than the primary analyst who had performed the tests at issue.

  5. Jenkins v. State

    102 So. 3d 1063 (Miss. 2012)   Cited 55 times
    Finding no confrontation violation where testifying expert was lab supervisor who reviewed and co-signed report identifying tested substance as cocaine and was knowledgeable about testing procedures

    ¶ 16. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.

  6. Jenkins v. State

    NO. 2010-CT-00203-SCT (Miss. Oct. 4, 2012)

    ¶16. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So. 2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.

  7. Brown v. State

    No. 4:10CV91-B-V (N.D. Miss. Sep. 20, 2011)

    As such, in the interest of privacy, the court will not to refer to her by name. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences. Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss. App. 2008), reh'g. denied, November 18, 2008, cert. denied, January 29, 2009 (Cause No. 2006-KA-315-COA). Brown then filed an "Application for Leave to File Motion for Post-Conviction Relief" and accompanying "Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and Supporting Authorities," raising the following grounds for relief (as stated by Brown through counsel):

  8. Brown v. State

    No. 4:10CV91-B-V (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Sep. 20, 2011)

    Whether the verdict finding King Young Brown, Jr. guilty of forcible rape is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences. Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss. App. 2008), reh'g. denied, November 18, 2008, cert. denied, January 29, 2009 (Cause No. 2006-KA-315-COA). The victim was a minor and suffered a sexual assault prior to her murder.

  9. Smith v. State

    No. 2021-KA-01003-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ¶37. In addition, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[w]hen the testifying witness is a court-accepted expert in the relevant field who participated in the analysis in some capacity, such as by performing procedural checks, then the testifying witness's testimony does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights." Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 860 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320, 339 (¶68) (Miss. 2003))

  10. Conners v. State

    92 So. 3d 676 (Miss. 2012)   Cited 106 times
    Concluding that Conners's right to confrontation was violated, but it did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, and the error was harmless

    Id. at 340. See also Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 861 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (The analyst who actually performed the DNA test did not testify; the testifying witness was the laboratory manager who “actively participated in the analysis” and checked the work done by the other analysts. The Court of Appeals held that the laboratory manager was “sufficiently involved with the analysis and overall process,” and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.