Hilliard v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-01781-COA
Oral Argument: 11-14-2006
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-13-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Right of confrontation - Admission of prior testimony - Testimonial hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2005
Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO 15 YEARS AND COUNT II, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO 4 YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
Case Number: 05-0028

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LATORI HILLARD A/K/A CHUCK HILLIARD




ROBERT STANLEY LITTLE



 

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: Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Right of confrontation - Admission of prior testimony - Testimonial hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802

Summary of the Facts: Latori Hillard was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years for the armed robbery charge and four years for the conspiracy charge. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Hillard argues that the court erred when it allowed the prosecution to read a witness’s prior testimony before the jury, because this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. The prior testimony of this witness severely implicated Hillard as the principle participant in the robbery. However, this witness refused to testify at Hillard’s trial. Testimonial hearsay must be exposed to confrontation by way of cross-examination prior to reaching admissible status, while non-testimonial hearsay does not trigger the need for confrontation to be admissible. Prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury or at a former trial, and prior testimony during police interrogations, are all examples of testimonial evidence. The record contains no indication that the prosecution introduced the prior testimony of the witness for any purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted – that Hillard robbed the casino. Thus, it was inadmissible under M.R.E. 801(c) and 802. In addition, the prior testimony of this witness was testimonial evidence. Hillard did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the witness’s own trial, nor did Hillard get to cross-examine the witness at Hillard’s trial. Therefore, the court erred when it allowed the prosecution to read the prior testimony into evidence. Hillard was most certainly prejudiced by introduction of the testimony as it was the testimony that tied the prosecution’s case together. Discounting the inadmissible evidence, there was quite meager evidence to sustain Hillard’s conviction on both charges. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court