Ronnie Shane Palmer v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-00857-COA
RONNIE SHANE PALMER
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
2/1/2002
HON. DALE HARKEY
JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
H. BERNARD GAUTIER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
ROBERT KEITH MILLER
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CAPITAL MURDER- SENTENCED TO SERVE
LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.
AFFIRMED - 03/09/2004
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Ronnie Shane Palmer was found guilty of capital murder by a circuit court jury. He appeals arguing
that the conviction was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, there was error in the testimony
of an expert witness, photographs were improperly admitted, and there was error in sentencing instructions.
We disagree with all these contentions and affirm.
¶2.
Nicole Palmer was the forty-one-day-old infant daughter of Deborah and Ronnie Palmer. Deborah
Palmer was attending an orientation for a new job. Ronnie Palmer was left to care for Nicole. Mrs. Palmer
left their apartment at around 7:00 a.m. and returned home between 12:30 and 1:00 that afternoon. Later
that day, she discovered Nicole was not breathing. Nicole was taken to the hospital where she was
pronounced dead.
¶3.
Ronnie Palmer stated that while he was giving his daughter a bath, he dropped her and she struck
her head on the side of the tub. He stated that he did not think there was anything wrong with her after this
happened. He also stated that he slapped the back of her head as he was trying to stop her crying and
make her go to sleep.
¶4.
At trial, Dr. Paul McGarry testified. He is a forensic pathologist who performed an autopsy on
Nicole the day after she died. He determined that her death was caused by a massive recent head injury.
He testified that her injury was caused by a very hard slamming of her head against a hard surface. He
further stated that this injury could not be caused by Palmer dropping her or slapping her head. The jury
found him guilty but could not agree on sentencing. Palmer was sentenced to life without parole by the trial
judge. From this, he appeals.
DISCUSSION
1. Expert testimony of Dr. McGarry
¶5.
During discovery, Palmer was given the autopsy protocol that Dr. McGarry prepared. Dr.
McGarry testified that Nicole's injury could not have been caused by Palmer's dropping her. He also
testified that Nicole's head was slammed against a hard object and that the bruises on her face and forehead
were caused by fingertips grasping the front of the head and forcing it against another surface. We will
discuss the different objections to this testimony that are made on appeal.
2
A. Discovery
¶6.
Palmer argues that at trial there was a failure to follow a uniform court rule structuring the
procedures for resolving discovery violations. The rule requires that before evidence may be admitted that
was not properly disclosed before trial, the objecting party will have an opportunity to examine the
evidence. If the party continues to object after the examination, certain other procedures are to be
followed. URCCC 9.04. Palmer did not object on the basis of a discovery violation during Dr. McGarry's
testimony. Objections on the grounds asserted on appeal must be made during trial or else the issue is
waived. Holland v. State, 587 So. 2d 848, 868 (Miss. 1991).
¶7.
There was no error due to discovery procedures in the admission of this testimony.
B. McGarry's scope of expertise
¶8.
Palmer argues that Dr. McGarry's testimony contained statements that were beyond his field of
expertise. Specifically, Palmer argues that it was impossible for the doctor to know what caused Nicole's
injuries. Dr. McGarry allegedly did not have the expertise to exclude the possibility that the child had
accidentally been dropped. However, a forensic pathologist may give testimony concerning the cause of
an injury. Mitchell v. State, 792 So. 2d 192, 215 (Miss. 2001). Dr. McGarry testified that the injuries
to Nicole were caused because her head was slammed against a hard object. There was physical and
photographic evidence presented at trial supporting this opinion. There was no error in allowing Dr.
McGarry to testify as to how the injuries occurred.
C. Prosecutor's statements in closing argument
¶9.
During his closing argument, the prosecutor stated:
And let me tell you something. Dr. McGarry was right. Dr. McGarry is an expert in
forensic pathology. Dr. McGarry knows exactly what happened to that child from his
3
investigation. That child was taken by the face and slammed down on something very
hard.
While a prosecutor is prohibited from stating his personal opinion as to the veracity of a witness, objections
must be made so that the trial judge may take corrective action. Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 128889 (Miss. 1994). Palmer made no objection to this statement.
2. Photographs
¶10.
Palmer next argues that the photographs offered during Dr. McGarry's testimony should not have
been admitted into evidence because of gruesomeness and lack of probative value. Palmer objected at
trial and his objection was overruled because the judge determined that the photographs would assist Dr.
McGarry in describing Nicole's injuries.
¶11.
The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial judge. Drake v. State, 800 So.
2d 508, 516 (Miss. 2001). There is broad discretion for admissibility even if the evidence is gruesome.
Id.
The injuries Nicole suffered were key to this case. The autopsy photographs were used by Dr.
McGarry to describe the injuries to the jury. The photographs were relevant and not unduly gruesome.
There was no abuse of discretion to allow the photographs.
¶12.
Palmer also complains that during his cross examination, the prosecutor held up one of the
photographs and asked him three times, "Is this your idea of giving your baby a Father's Day present?"
Palmer objected to this line of questioning and moved for a mistrial. The judge sustained the objection and
denied the motion for a mistrial. Palmer argues that this use of the photograph inflamed the jury. The
photograph, though, had already been admitted into evidence and was reviewable by jurors during the trial
and later during deliberations. The prosecutor's attempt to be dramatic certainly emphasized the
4
photograph, but there was no new prejudice injected into the case that went beyond the relevance of the
photograph to fact issues for the jurors' decision.
3. Aggravating circumstances and jury instructions
¶13.
Palmer next argues that if we grant him a new trial, he should not stand the risk of the death penalty
after receiving a life sentence following his first trial. He argues that the prosecutor stated the law
incorrectly as to relevant aggravating circumstances for the jury's consideration. He also argues that the
jury should not have been told to consider if the capital offense was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel."
¶14.
This issue would arise only if Palmer were to have his conviction reversed. Since we are affirming,
what might happen during sentencing after a second trial is academic.
4. Weight of the evidence
¶15.
Palmer argues that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. He argues
that he gave a plausible explanation of Nicole's injuries, that Dr. McGarry's testimony was pure speculation,
and that no reasonable juror could believe that he caused the injury.
¶16.
The jury heard Palmer's version of events and decided instead that the State's account of Nicole's
death was correct. The State's evidence of child abuse consisted of the fact that Palmer was alone with
Nicole, he admitted dropping and slapping her, and during this time she was injured and died from the
injuries. Dr. McGarry testified as to what would have been necessary to cause such injuries, directly
contradicting Palmer's version. The jury decides the credibility of witnesses. Kolberg v. State, 829 So.
2d 29, 71 (Miss. 2002). A verdict of guilty will be upheld unless it was the result of prejudice, bias or
fraud, or is against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 40. There were no such infirmities. We affirm.
5
¶17. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
JACKSON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
