Porter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01817-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01817-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609(a)(1)(B)- Discovery violation - Character evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-21-2002 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: James M. Hood, III Case Number: MK01-225 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lajuane Porter |
DAVID G. HILL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609(a)(1)(B)- Discovery violation - Character evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lajuane Porter was found guilty of aggravated assault and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior conviction Porter argues that the court erred by allowing the State to introduce Porter’s prior criminal conviction for simple assault/domestic violence for the purpose of impeachment, because his prior conviction does not meet the threshold requirement of M.R.E. 609(a)(1)(B) which requires that the crime be punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. However, the conviction was not first used to impeach but was offered to rebut the evidence presented on cross-examination which makes Rule 609 inapplicable. When Porter took the stand, the jury had already heard about the conviction on re-direct, and the State was free to further explore the conviction on cross-examination of Porter. Issue 2: Discovery violation Porter argues that the State committed a discovery violation by not disclosing the NCIC reports showing the criminal record of Porter prior to trial. When Porter’s counsel object to the report, the judge stated that he would give defense counsel an opportunity to confer with Porter on the issue of his prior conviction. If Porter then believed the lack of opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence prejudiced him, it was incumbent upon him to request a continuance. Because he failed to do so, Porter has waived the issue on appeal. Porter also argues that the State’s offer to withdraw the report and then seeking to introduce it again later at trial constitutes an impermissible waiver by judicial estoppel. His argument is without merit because the doctrine of judicial estoppel is applicable when a party takes a different position in a later proceeding. Here, there was only one trial. Issue 3: Character evidence Porter argues that the court erred by permitting the State to impeach him by cross-examination using character evidence as to his temper and his participation in anger management classes. A party is required to make a contemporaneous objection on specific grounds to the admission of evidence by the trial court. Because Porter’s counsel never formally objected to the State’s line of questioning concerning Porter’s temper and participation in anger management classes, the issue cannot be considered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
