Walton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01065-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01065-COA ; 2006-CT-01065-SCT ; 2006-CT-01065-SCT ; 2006-CT-01065-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Suppression of statement - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-04-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: MURDER - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 04-521-CR |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on 11/13/2008. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO52613.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DESMOND D. WALTON |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| 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: | Murder - Suppression of statement - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Desmond Walton was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of statement Walton argues that the second interview was initiated by the State, and even if the interview had been initiated by him, there had been an insufficient cooling off period after the first interview ended. Walton’s statement was not a confession. Rather, Walton denied the accusation of murder and claimed self-defense. Nevertheless, the videotape was prejudicial to his defense. His initial denial, and then recanting of the denial in the face of another man’s accusation, which the jury subsequently saw and heard the other man testify to, had to have been prejudicial. However, the issue is not simply prejudice. It is, whether in light of the record as a whole, Walton would have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt even without the tainted statement. Three witnesses testified against Walton. Two testified that Walton shot the unarmed victim. One testified that Walton made a subsequent admission that Walton “had to do him.” The victim was shot in the back, and no weapon was found on, or near, his body. Walton presented no evidence in his defense. Upon this record, the jury had no basis to make any finding other than that Walton shot the victim. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Walton argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to request a lesser-included offense instruction. The record is insufficient for the Court to determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient. An appellate court will only address an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal if the parties stipulate counsel was ineffective, or the record is clear that counsel’s performance was so deficient as to raise constitutional concerns. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
