Hunt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01302-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01302-COA ; 2002-CP-01302-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, Thomas and Lee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2002 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: E. Lindsey Carter Case Number: CI01-0083 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Clint Trace Hunt a/k/a Clint Hunt a/k/a Clinton Trace Hunt |
CHESTER D. NICHOLSON
GAIL D. NICHOLSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clint Hunt was convicted of rape in 1995. In 2001, he filed for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. The court denied his motion, and he appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hunt argues that his newly discovered evidence establishes that no crime was committed. This evidence is in the form of testimony at the post-conviction relief hearing or affidavits of three individuals. In order to warrant granting a new trial because of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that the evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, has been discovered since the trial, could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, is material to the issue, and is not merely cumulative or impeaching. Hunt claimed that he and the victim met at a bar, and the victim had a one-night, consensual sexual encounter with him. Some of the new evidence suggests that the purported victim had consensually engaged in sex with Hunt; other evidence concerned her frequenting of bars. Although some of the evidence impeaches the victim's testimony, it corroborates Hunt's version and would therefore likely cause a different result as to justify a new trial. The most important new witness was not reasonably discoverable through the exercise of due diligence since the victim insisted that this witness was an irrelevancy. The new evidence raises many significant questions about whether a mistake was made. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
