Todd v. State
Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00374-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-18-2004 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Recanting testimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-15-2003 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: HK98-026A |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Cameron Todd |
JOHN P. FOX
JIM WAIDE |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
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: | Post-conviction relief - Recanting testimony |
Summary of the Facts: | Cameron Todd was convicted and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment with eight years suspended on each of the three sexual battery counts and ten years with eight years suspended on a fondling count. Todd filed a direct appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Todd applied to the Supreme Court for permission to file a motion for post-conviction relief which was granted. After a hearing, the trial judge denied the relief requested by Todd. Todd appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Todd argues that the court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because there is a dispute as to the authenticity of the victim's letter retracting her claim of having sex with Todd. Recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable and is regarded with suspicion, and it is the right and duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. This is not a case in which the victim has recanted her testimony and now claims the defendant did not commit the crime. Instead, the person claiming to have forged the letter has recanted his testimony and stated that he did not know who wrote the letter. Todd argues that since this person has recanted his testimony, there is now less reason for the court to exclude the letter as unauthenticated. However, the court found that this person was an unreliable witness and that his testimony did not serve to authenticate the letter, simply because he no longer claims to have been its creator. Todd has failed to show that this decision was clearly erroneous. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court