Dahl v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00605-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00605-COA2006-CT-00605-SCT2006-CT-00605-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-26-2007 | |
* 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: 12-11-2007 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Accomplice instruction - Weight of evidence - Continuance Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2005 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO TWO LIFE SENTENCES IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 2004-10,057(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES PAUL DAHL |
DUSTIN NORMAN THOMAS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Accomplice instruction - Weight of evidence - Continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Dahl was convicted of two counts of capital murder and was sentenced to two life sentences. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Dahl argues that his trial counsel was ineffective, because he failed to fully investigate through discovery motions what information the State had related to the case, failed to interview certain witnesses and secure their appearance and testimony at trial, failed to object to a jury instruction or to offer certain jury instructions on his behalf, failed to ask follow-up questions of witnesses, and failed to move for a mistrial on the ground that the jury deliberated as Hurricane Katrina was growing stronger. Because he fails to show a reasonable probability that he would have had a better result but for counsel’s errors, his claim fails. Issue 2: Accomplice instruction Dahl argues that an accomplice instruction was improper and that the jury should have been instructed to consider the accomplice testimony with great care, caution, and suspicion, regardless of whether it was or was not corroborated. The long-established rule in Mississippi is that the testimony of a convicted accomplice and felon must be viewed with great caution and suspicion. Where it is uncorroborated, it must also be reasonable, not improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached. When determining whether a trial judge has abused his discretion in failing to grant an accomplice jury instruction, there are two factors to consider: whether the witness was an accomplice and whether his testimony was uncorroborated by other evidence. It is clear from the record and the testimony that Hogancamp was, in fact, an accomplice in the murders. There is also other evidence to corroborate Hogancamp’s testimony. Hogancamp’s version of events was corroborated by Dahl’s own testimony. There is also physical evidence from the houseboat related to where blood pooled on the floor that tends to support Hogancamp’s testimony. Because there is substantial evidence to support Hogancamp’s testimony regarding Dahl’s involvement in the crimes, there is no plain error in the giving of the instruction. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Dahl argues that the guilty verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. He did not, however, assert this error in his motion for new trial, and he is procedurally barred from arguing it now. Issue 4: Continuance Dahl received notice three days before trial that Hogancamp would testify regarding statements Dahl made to him when the two were housed together in jail. Dahl requested a continuance in order to investigate Hogancamp’s allegation, or, alternatively, that the court prevent Hogancamp from testifying regarding that statement. The court granted Dahl until noon the next day in order to investigate Hogancamp’s statements. Dahl was not entitled to have the trial postponed indefinitely while he looked for something useful. Dahl also asked for a continuance in order to have an expert examine the audiotape of his statement to police, or, to have it suppressed. Dahl and his attorney had possession of the tape well in advance of trial and knew of its existence long before they claim to have received it through discovery. The trial court acted within its discretion in refusing Dahl more time to have the tape examined by an expert. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
