Spurlock v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00843-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00843-COA ; 2007-CT-00843-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-18-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Co-indictee’s prior felony convictions - M.R.E. 609(a) & (b) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-11-2007 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 532-05 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CARL SHERMAN SPURLOCK |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
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 - Co-indictee’s prior felony convictions - M.R.E. 609(a) & (b) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carl Spurlock was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life as a habitual offender without eligibility for parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Co-indictee’s prior felony convictions Spurlock argues that the trial judge’s granting of the State’s motion in limine, to exclude his co-indictee’s prior felony convictions that were more than ten years old pursuant to M.R.E. 609(b) was an abuse of discretion. The admission into evidence of any conviction is subject to the time limits of M.R.E. 609(b). Here, the trial judge misinterpreted the rule and erred in determining that the evidence of all crimes more than ten years old was inadmissible without conducting the balancing test required under Rule 609(b). The trial court automatically excluded the evidence without considering the provision of the rule following the applicable time limit. Under the rule, the court must entertain any showing by the proponent that the convictions have probative value. If the proponent makes such a showing, then the trial court must make a probative/prejudicial determination. However, in this case, the error was harmless. Rule 609(a)(1) allows full impeachment of prosecution witnesses without the requirement of a balancing test, except in extreme situations such as where the prosecution witness has a prior conviction that is both highly inflammatory and completely unrelated to the charges pending against the accused. While the co-indictee’s older convictions may have had some probative value, three of them were identical to the more recent conviction that was admitted. Had the trial judge conducted the appropriate analysis under Rule 609(a), he may well have excluded these older convictions as being merely cumulative of the more recent burglary and larceny conviction. Further, given the age of the excluded convictions and their lessened probative value, the trial court might have also concluded that, under Rule 609(b), their probative value did not substantially outweigh even the minimal prejudicial effect. It appears from the record that it would be unlikely a jury could have mistaken the co-indictee for an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, even without the introduction of his older convictions. In addition, Spurlock was able to confront the co-indictee with a more probative prior conviction that was admitted and his guilty plea. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Spurlock argues that there existed no competent evidence to find Spurlock guilty of the crime of capital murder, because the co-indictee substantially impeached his testimony by claiming he did not commit robbery, although he pleaded guilty to robbery. A person may be found guilty on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. The evidence in this case was sufficient to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
