Scott v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-00915-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00915-COA2005-CT-00915-SCT2005-CT-00915-SCT2005-CT-00915-SCT
Oral Argument: 10-09-2007
 

 

* 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: 03-18-2008
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder - Recusal of judge - Right to speedy trial - Suppression of confession - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER AND ISHEE, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: ROBERTS, J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-31-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Tomie Green
Disposition: CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson
Case Number: 02-1-149-00 TTG

Note: This opinion was later reversed by the Supreme Court on 12/4/2008. The trial court's judgment was reinstated. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO52649.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WILLIAM G. SCOTT A/K/A WILLIAM SCOTT




J. CHRISTOPHER KLOTZ, JOSHUA AARON TURNER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS CHARLES W. MARIS  

    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 - Recusal of judge - Right to speedy trial - Suppression of confession - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel

    Summary of the Facts: William Scott was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Recusal of judge Scott argues that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial when the trial judge failed to recuse herself upon being told by Scott’s defense counsel that Scott had confessed to committing the crime and intended to offer perjured testimony at trial. A judge is required to disqualify himself if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about his impartiality. Scott’s counsel argued that he could not continue to represent Scott because he could not, in accordance with Miss. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3, put Scott on the stand and question him knowing that he would perjure himself. Once Scott’s attorney informed the judge that Scott had confessed to the crime, the judge was thereafter precluded from judging the merits of Scott’s motion to suppress and should have recused herself. This decision is based not on the fact that the trial judge was informed by Scott’s counsel that Scott intended to commit perjury, but rather on the fact that counsel specifically told the judge, who was sitting as finder of fact on Scott’s motion to suppress, that Scott confessed to him that he committed the crime for which he was on trial. A reasonable person, knowing that a judge has been informed by the defendant’s lawyer that the defendant confessed, would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality in ruling on the motion to suppress. The case is remanded with instruction that Scott be granted a new hearing on his motion to suppress before an impartial judge and, thereafter, a new trial. Issue 2: Right to speedy trial Scott argues that his trial was delayed in violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In determining if his right was violated, the court must balance the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. Approximately thirteen and one half months of the delay are attributable to the State, which is presumptively prejudicial. Docket congestion was the reason for the delay. At the time Scott asserted his right to a speedy trial, his trial had already been set for three months; moreover, most of the delay between Scott’s arrest and trial had already lapsed when Scott asserted his right to a speedy trial. The record is unclear whether Scott in fact lost any witnesses or documentary evidence during the time period between his arrest and trial and whether any such loss was the result of the delay caused by the State rather than the delay caused by Scott. Therefore, the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing addressing the forms of prejudice Scott asserts and a determination of whether Scott was, in fact, prejudiced as a result in the delay of his trial. Issue 3: Suppression of confession Scott argues that the trial court erred in not suppressing the confession because the State failed to produce all of the individuals who witnessed his alleged confession at the suppression hearing. This issue will be left for determination by the new trial judge on remand. Issue 4: Closing argument Scott argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor, during his closing statement, twice referred to Scott as a “shyster” and a “con artist.” The prosecutor may comment on any facts introduced into evidence and may draw whatever deductions and inferences that seem proper to him from the facts. During his trial, Scott admitted that he had previously been convicted of attempted embezzlement, theft, and use of a stolen ATM card. He also admitted that he knowingly used a license plate that was not his in order to travel from Mississippi to Georgia because his tag was expired; and he altered numbers on his social security card. Finally, he admitted that he lied to the police about being married. Thus, the prosecutor’s statements in this case were reasonable conclusions drawn from facts introduced into evidence. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Scott’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim would be more appropriately brought in a motion for post-conviction relief.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court