Golden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00449-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00449-COA ; 2002-CT-00449-SCT ; 2002-CT-00449-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Embezzlement & Conspiracy - Judicial interference - M.R.E. 614(b) - Circumstantial evidence instruction Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: COUNT I: CONSPIRACY TO EMBEZZLE AND SENTENCE OF 5 YEARS; COUNT II: EMBEZZLEMENT AND SENTENCE OF 10 YEARS, WITH 1 YEAR SUSPENDED AND 1 YEAR SUPERVISED PROBATION. SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO SENTENCE IN COUNT I. PAY $250 TO CRIME VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND AND $19,366.91 IN RESTITUTION District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2001-206 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Antrina Golden a/k/a Trina |
LINTON COOK KILPATRICK
MARTIN A. KILPATRICK |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Embezzlement & Conspiracy - Judicial interference - M.R.E. 614(b) - Circumstantial evidence instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antrina Golden was convicted of embezzlement and conspiracy. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Judicial interference Golden argues that the behavior and participation of the trial judge tainted the outcome of the trial. Because Golden failed to make a timely objection to the lower court's actions, the issue is barred. While M.R.E. 614(b) allows the court to question witnesses, he must be careful and guarded in language and conduct in the presence of the jury to avoid prejudice to either party. The record does not support Golden’s claim that the lower court abandoned its detachment and adopted a position adversarial to Golden. Issue 2: Circumstantial evidence instruction Golden argues that the court improperly denied a circumstantial evidence instruction. Circumstantial evidence instructions are appropriate only where the evidence is wholly circumstantial. Videotape evidence submitted to the jury of an accused's unlawful acts constitutes direct evidence. Since substantial videotape evidence of Golden's offense was provided to the jury, the case was not wholly circumstantial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
