Melissa Doris Favre v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-01958-COA
MELISSA DORIS FAVRE
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
9/21/2002
HON. STEPHEN B. SIMPSON
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TOM SUMRALL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
CONO A. CARANNA, II
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 07/13/2004
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Melissa Doris Favre was found guilty of aggravated assault by a Harrison County Circuit Court
jury. Favre appeals arguing that the trial court improperly excluded evidence crucial in her presentation of
her theory of the crime. We find the exclusion of the evidence was within the discretion of the trial judge.
Consequently, we affirm.
¶2.
Steven Favre was attacked in the middle of the night in the trailer in which he lived. His wife,
Melissa Favre, was convicted of the assault. Favre claims that the trial judge incorrectly excluded evidence
that was pertinent to her case. She sought to establish that a third person or persons came into the trailer
and attacked her husband. She relies on the evidence concerning DNA and blood spatter experts that was
admitted that did not rule out the presence of a third party on the night of her husband's attack. Favre
sought to bolster this possibility by informing the jury that her husband was involved in the sale of drugs,
therefore establishing someone else would have had a motive to attack him. The trial judge refused to allow
this line of testimony and we agree that this was within his discretion.
DISCUSSION
¶3.
Favre claims that, as a defendant, she should have been allowed to present her theory of what had
happened to her husband. She claims that a third party must have entered the trailer and attacked her
husband. She discovered him injured and sought help. Favre alleges that her husband was involved in the
illegal drug business, which common knowledge confirms is a potentially violent occupation, and that
someone else involved in that business may have been the person committing this crime. That is indeed
a speculative possibility, but it would be simply one theory in the universe of possibilities of what happened
to the victim. In order for evidence supporting this theory to be admitted, there must be some predicate.
The trial judge heard the proposed testimony and found that it was inadmissible.
¶4.
The defense made a proffer of evidence. There was evidence that the victim was known to sell
cocaine and had previously been arrested for that offense. There was some information provided in the
proffer that likely was inadmissible hearsay, but there was also evidence that may well have been admissible
if only some relevance was shown.
2
¶5.
No one testified to having seen someone else at the trailer. No evidence of previous incidents
involving violence by anyone involved in the drug trade against the victim was offered. The fact that DNA
from more than the victim and the defendant was found was not evidence that other DNA was left behind
at the time of the assault by some unknown person. The expert witness who described the DNA testing
discussed that a large number of samples were taken, and only some were from blood. The DNA could
have been left on surfaces and elsewhere in the trailer over an extended period of time and in many different
ways. As the witness stated, since even skin cells and saliva contain DNA, a person "could deposit DNA
just by touching something."
¶6.
For evidence to be relevant, it must have a "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without
the evidence." M.R.E. 401. "A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and
admissibility of evidence. Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused,
the Court will not reverse this ruling." Hughes v. State, 735 So. 2d 238, 270 (Miss. 1999) (quoting
Fisher v. State, 690 So. 2d 268, 274 (Miss. 1996) (citations omitted)). The decision at this trial that the
evidence would have simply taken the jury into speculation as opposed to credible evidence of alternative
theories of the crime was within the range of discretion afforded a trial judge.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.,
CONCUR.
3
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.
