Denham v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00725-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-16-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Exclusion of fingerprint evidence - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 404(b) - In-court identification - Inconsistent testimony instruction Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTION OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PROBATION, PAROLE OR ANY FORM OF EARLY RELEASE. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 05-168-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PATRICK DOUGLAS DENHAM |
LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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: | Burglary of dwelling - Exclusion of fingerprint evidence - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 404(b) - In-court identification - Inconsistent testimony instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patrick Denham was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of fingerprint evidence Denham argues that the court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of fingerprint comparison and their results, because the State’s failure to produce one of the two examiners violated Denham’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. There was no testimony or evidence from the other examiner. The jury heard only that he performed the initial fingerprint examination at the crime lab. His report was neither admitted into evidence nor were his findings ever presented to the jury. Therefore, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Denham argues that the court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of other crimes, i.e., several photographs taken of him by a detective on a date prior to the burglary. The detective’s trial testimony revealed only that he had previously encountered Denham and had the opportunity to photograph him and his vehicle. There was no unfair prejudice in the detective’s testimony nor did it raise any evidence of Denham’s other crimes or bad acts. Therefore, the evidence was not required to be excluded under M.R.E. 403 or M.R.E. 404(b). Issue 3: In-court identification Denham argues that a witness’s testimony was tainted by the unduly suggestive out of court identification he made on the day of the crime. Denham fails to state any reason or basis to claim why or how the photographic line-up was impermissibly suggestive. Denham’s analysis actually tries to attack the credibility of the witness’s out-of-court and in-court identifications. This is properly a jury issue. Issue 4: Jury instruction Denham argues that the court erred in refusing Denham’s instruction on inconsistent testimony. Conflicts between testimony of a witness and the written statement of a witness would justify such an instruction. If the instruction was granted, the trial judge would have concluded and informed the jury that the witness’s statements made prior to trial were inconsistent with his trial testimony. In this case, the witness’s pre-trial statement were not inconsistent with his trial testimony. Therefore, the trial court was correct in refusing proposed instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
