Catchings v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01260-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01260-COA ; 2008-CT-01260-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-03-2009 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Prosecutorial misconduct - Send a message argument - Comments on post-arrest silence - Witness's prior convictions - M.R.E. 609(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: BARNES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE District Attorney: Robert Shuler Smith Case Number: 07-0-856 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CEDRIC CATCHINGS |
LESLIE S. LEE,
JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 - Prosecutorial misconduct - Send a message argument - Comments on post-arrest silence - Witness's prior convictions - M.R.E. 609(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric Catchings was convicted for capital murder. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prosecutorial misconduct Catchings argues that the prosecutor committed reversible error when he made “send-a-message” arguments during his opening and closing statements. A statement will not be improper simply because it sends a message that the community will not tolerate violence, but if it makes an appeal based on unproven sentiments of the community. These are statements which tend to cajole or coerce a jury to reach a verdict for the purpose of meeting public favor and not based on the evidence. The comments in question were neither improper nor did they prejudicially affect Catchings’s right to a fair trial since it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt, that absent the prosecutor’s comments, the jury could have found the defendant guilty. Catchings also argues that the State’s attempts to question him regarding the content of telephone records that had not been admitted into evidence also gave rise to prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor was allowed to lay a foundation to introduce testimony regarding how the police department had subpoenaed someone’s phone records in the course and scope of their investigation. The prosecutor’s later reference to the phone records during Catchings’s cross-examination was therefore not a blatant disregard of the trial court’s ruling, since testimony regarding the phone records previously had been admitted into evidence. Issue 2: Comments on post-arrest silence Catchings argues that when a detective commented on Catchings’s postarrest silence, this comment unfairly prejudiced Catchings’s right to a fair trial. No evidence in the record reflects whether Catchings received Miranda warnings. However, even if error had occurred by allowing the prosecution’s witness to comment on Catchings’s post-arrest silence, such error is harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Issue 3: Prior convictions Catchings argues that he was denied his fundamental right to fully confront the witnesses against him when the trial court would not allow defense counsel to cross-examine a witness regarding his prior felony convictions. Under M.R.E. 609(a)(1)(A)-(B), crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year are allowed for impeachment, provided the court determines that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on a party. M.R.E. 609(a)(2) pertains to crimes which reflect on a witness's propensity for truthfulness – crimes involving either dishonesty or false statements. The plain language of Rule 609(a)(1) provides that as long as the prejudice/probative test stated in Rule 609(a)(1) is complied with, convictions resulting in death or imprisonment in excess of one year are admissible for impeachment purposes, whether or not the conviction relates to the witness's veracity. Given the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to confront those testifying against him, the Supreme Court interprets Rule 609(a)(1) as allowing 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. Such a prior conviction should, therefore, be analyzed under a Rule 609(a)(1) probative/prejudicial balancing test. Here, the witness's convictions of burglary and fleeing from police are arguably unrelated to Catchings’s charge of capital murder. As such, the trial court had the discretion to conduct a probative/prejudicial balancing test despite the fact that the witness was a non-party. In the event the trial court did err in excluding the witness's prior convictions, this error was harmless. Due to the overwhelming evidence against him, Catchings was not prejudiced by the trial court’s exclusion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
