Baskin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01387-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-09-2008 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Define reasonable doubt - Shackles - Prosecutorial misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-10-2007 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, SALE OF COCAINE, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS AS A SUBSEQUENT OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND A FINE OF $10,000 District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 8674 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JEROME BASKIN A/K/A LIL RED COOT |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF,
LESLIE S. LEE,
WILLIAM C. STENNETT |
|
|
| 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: | Sale of cocaine - Define reasonable doubt - Shackles - Prosecutorial misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jerome Baskin was convicted of the sale of cocaine, for which he was sentenced to thirty years as a subsequent offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Define reasonable doubt Baskin argues that the prosecutor impermissibly attempted to define reasonable doubt during the State’s closing argument in violation of Baskin’s substantive rights. The defense did not make a contemporaneous objection regarding this issue. M.R.E. 103(d) allows a court to take notice of any plain error affecting a substantial right even though it was not brought to the court’s attention. During closing arguments, it is permissible for counsel to discuss the distinction between reasonable doubt, all possible doubt, and beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if the comments were objectionable, they did not rise to the level of prejudicial proportions. Issue 2: Shackles Baskin argues that the circuit court should have declared a mistrial because the prospective jurors had the opportunity to witness him in shackles. There is no error with the judge’s decision not to grant a mistrial. As soon as he noticed the shackles, he resolved the issue, and there was no evidence of prejudice. Issue 3: Prosecutorial misconduct Baskin argues that the prosecutor’s comments deprived him of a fair trial. Baskin is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal since he failed to make a contemporaneous objection. In addition, there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
