King v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00916-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 06-26-2008 | |
* 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: 11-18-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Deliberate design murder - Prior inconsistent statements Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Myers, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTED OF DELIBERATE-DESIGN MURDER AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 02-0-726 |
|
| Note: | Audio Only | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SEAN ANTONIO KING A/K/A SEAN TONY EDWARD KING |
JULIE ANN EPPS |
|
|
| 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: | Deliberate design murder - Prior inconsistent statements |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sean King was convicted of deliberate design murder and was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | King argues that the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to impeach four witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements and by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine them using leading questions. He also argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to use the prior inconsistent statements of its alleged eyewitnesses as substantive evidence of King’s guilt. Witnesses may be cross-examined or impeached by the party calling them when they prove to be hostile. However, the party must first show that the evidence as given, has taken him by surprise and that the witness is hostile. The witness may then be asked if he has made contradictory statements out of court, the times, places and circumstances of the statements being described to him in detail. Where the witness’s repudiation of his prior statement is well known to the State’s attorney prior to the time the witness is called to testify, the State’s attorney cannot and may not claim surprise. A party should not be allowed to call an adverse witness for the sole purpose of impeaching him or put a witness on the stand, knowing that his testimony will be adverse, and then claim surprise in order to impeach the witness. In this case, the four witnesses were all called to testify by the State. During each of these witnesses’ testimonies the State impeached them with their prior inconsistent statements to the police. However, the facts of this case make it clear that the foundational requirements for coming within the exception to the general rule were not laid. Only two of the witnesses were actually declared hostile by the trial judge. The prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who were not declared hostile and impeach them regarding their prior inconsistent statements, even though surprise was not claimed or shown. This constituted error under the rule preventing an attorney from cross-examining his own witness who is not hostile. The trial court also erred by allowing impeachment of the testimonies of the two witnesses who were declared hostile. Unsworn prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment of the witness’s credibility regarding his testimony on direct examination. However, the prior inconsistent out-of-court statements made by one not a party may not be used as substantive evidence. It is clear in this case that the prior inconsistent statements of the State’s witnesses were not only essential to the State’s case but also provided the only evidence of King’s guilt. Specifically, the State was allowed to argue both during cross-examination and closing argument that each of its witnesses positively identified King as the shooter. The fact that the trial judge instructed the jury on the proper use of the prior inconsistent statements of the State’s witnesses did not cure the error under the circumstances of this case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
