Mitchell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01202-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-01202-COA ; 2007-CT-01202-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-25-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Accomplice instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: L. Breland Hilburn Disposition: CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 03-0-798 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RICHARD MITCHELL A/K/A RICK MITCHELL |
WILLIAM R. LABARRE,
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS |
|
|
| 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 - Accomplice instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Mitchell was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Accomplice instructions Mitchell argues that the trial court erroneously refused two instructions dealing with accomplice testimony. The trial court did not err in refusing the proposed instructions, as one of them was an incorrect statement. In addition, the court granted two instructions which accurately instructed the jury on accomplice testimony. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Mitchell argues that the evidence against him was not sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict as a result of the numerous inconsistencies of the State’s witnesses’ testimony and lack of investigation by law enforcement. While the evidence against Mitchell was certainly not overwhelming, there was sufficient evidence to establish Mitchell’s guilt. There was undisputed testimony from several witnesses that Mitchell needed money in order to pay his probation officer. Additionally, a witness testified that Mitchell told him that if he did not get the money he needed he was going to “hit the barbershop man up” and that he gave Mitchell the pistol used in the commission of the murder. Another witness testified that Mitchell asked him for a shirt because his was covered in blood, and he identified the shirt retrieved from Mitchell’s room as the shirt he gave him. Issue 3: Closing argument During its closing arguments, the State made several references to the testimony of its witnesses. For the first time on appeal, Mitchell argues that the State’s comments were improper, because the State impermissibly commented on his right not to testify and attempted to instruct the jury on how to weigh certain evidence. In order to overcome the procedural bar, Mitchell must demonstrate that a constitutional right was violated as a result of the State’s comments. It is clear from the transcript of the trial as a whole that the defense’s theory of the case was that Mitchell was innocent and another person was the guilty party. The State’s comments during its closing argument brought attention to the lack of evidence supporting Mitchell’s theory of the case. Thus, they did not violate Mitchell’s constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
