White v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00313-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Bolstering of testimony - Improper characterization of testimony - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2005 Appealed from: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: CONVICTION OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCE OF A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE FOLLOWED BY FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2005-0010CICR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ROBERT WHITE, JR. |
JAMES H. ARNOLD |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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: | Manslaughter - Bolstering of testimony - Improper characterization of testimony - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert White was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Bolstering of testimony Robert argues that the court erred when it overruled his objection to the prosecution’s bolstering of a witness on redirect. While defense counsel brought out testimony and expounded on points more thoroughly than the prosecution, it did not impeach or question the credibility of the witness. Therefore, the bolstering of his testimony was improper, and the trial court should have sustained the objection. However, this error was merely harmless since there was very little doubt from the evidence presented at trial that Robert shot the victim. Issue 2: Improper characterization of testimony Robert argues that the prosecution wrongfully stated that one of the defense witnesses, “lied in open court.” While the trial court did not specifically “sustain” the objection, it did attempt to correct the situation. It was clear from the bench conference, that the only individual confused as to what the witness had testified to was the State. To clear up any confusion as to the statement, the trial court had the State ask the question again. Since the trial court had the State ask the question again, it helped to cure any prejudice that might have resulted. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Robert argues that the State was not able to overcome his theory of justifiable self-defense. While Robert testified that he received an injury to his arm several years before and was missing a few fingers on his left hand, the jury could have still concluded that he could have defended himself without a weapon when approached by an unarmed man. This was clearly an issue properly left for the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
