Hilliard v. State
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