Triplett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01203-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01203-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Business burglary - Impeachment by prior convictions - M.R.E. 609 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Bridges, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2002 Appealed from: Neshoba County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTION OF BUSINESS BURGLARY - SENTENCE OF SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 01-CR-0085-NS C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Daron Triplett |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Business burglary - Impeachment by prior convictions - M.R.E. 609 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Triplett was convicted of business burglary and sentenced, as a habitual offender, to seven years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Triplett argues that the court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior convictions to impeach him on cross-examination, because the convictions involving the crime of burglary should not be admissible under M.R.E. 609 since the crime of burglary has no probative value on the issue of truthfulness. A crime which does not involve propensity of truthfulness may be admissible under M.R.E. 609(a)(1) so long as it meets the requirements which are set forth in that rule. The plain language of Rule 609(a)(1)(B) requires that before admitting evidence of a party's conviction of a crime, the judge must determine that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. In making this determination, the court should consider the impeachment value of the prior crime; the point in time of the conviction and the witness' subsequent history; the similarity between the past crime and the charged crime; the importance of the defendant's testimony; and the centrality of the credibility issue. Here, there is little, if any, impeachment value in Triplett’s prior burglary convictions and his receiving stolen property conviction. While the receiving-stolen-property conviction was not ten years old, it was close, and there is little probative value in the admission of an offense this old. Triplett’s prior crimes of burglary and receiving stolen property are so similar to the crime for which Triplett was being tried, business burglary, that the prejudicial effect of admitting the convictions is very high. Therefore, the court erred in admitting these prior convictions for impeachment purposes. However, such error was harmless, as the weight of the evidence against Triplett, excluding his prior convictions, was substantial and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Triplett committed the crime of business burglary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
