Blakeney v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-02300-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-02300-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-08-2009 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - M.R.A.P. 2 - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 5 - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-19(1) - Videotaped statements - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Miranda rights Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2007 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR EACH COUNT TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2006-261-KR2B |
|
| Note: | A modified opinion was issued on 7/20/2010 on a motion for rehearing. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WANDA LEONA BLAKENEY |
DANIEL DEWAYNE WARE |
|
|
| 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: | Murder - M.R.A.P. 2 - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 5 - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-19(1) - Videotaped statements - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 802 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Miranda rights |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wanda Blakeney was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to serve two consecutive life sentences. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction M.R.A.P. 2(a)(1) states that the dismissal of an appeal is mandatory if the notice of appeal was not timely filed pursuant to M.R.A.P. 4 or 5. Under M.R.A.P. 4(a), Blakeney is required to file her notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of her sentencing order. The thirty-day period ended on January 19, 2008, which was a Saturday. The following Monday, January 21, 2008, was a legal holiday. Consequently, Blakeney’s appeal should have been filed by Tuesday, January 22, 2008. As she failed to file her notice of appeal until the following day, January 23, 2008, her notice of appeal was untimely. However, Rules 2 and 4 may be suspended when justice demands to allow an out-of-time appeal in criminal cases. As the dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction would likely result in Blakeney’s filing a motion for post-conviction relief citing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the failure to file a timely notice of appeal, the Court will suspend the rules pursuant to Rule 2(c) and address this appeal on its merits. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence The indictments stated that the murders were a result of suffocation. Blakeney argues that the State failed to prove this element, because the expert testimony showed that the victims were killed by “manual strangulation.” Although the State argues that the terms “strangulation” and “suffocation” are synonymous, the terms are distinguishable. However, there was no requirement that Blakeney’s indictment contain the manner or means of the victims’ deaths. Blakeney was indicted under section 97-3-19(1), which put the burden on the State to prove that Blakeney killed the victims with the deliberate design to effect their deaths. The indictment sufficiently notified Blakeney of the charges against her in order that she might prepare her defense, even though the means of death listed on the indictment was not wholly consistent with the testimony. The mere addition of this manner of death did not change the nature of the crime for which Blakeney was being charged. Blakeney also argues that the evidence presented against her was circumstantial at best. A circumstantial evidence case is one in which there is neither an eyewitness nor a confession to the crime. Here, Blakeney confessed to the police that she and her husband had discussed the murders prior to their occurrence and that she had assisted her husband in attempting to cover up the murders. A confession by a defendant constitutes direct evidence. Issue 3: Videotaped statement Blakeney argues that statements made by law enforcement to her in her videotaped statement regarding her husband’s statements are hearsay under M.R.E. 801© and that any probative value of such statements was outweighed by their prejudicial nature. Evidence is relevant under M.R.E. 402 if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. M.R.E. 802 provides that hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law. If the statement is not admitted for the truth of the matter but, rather, to impeach a witness’s testimony, then it is admissible hearsay. Here, the trial court properly admitted the videotaped statements into evidence as they were not being admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that Blakeney planned and committed the murder of her parents. Rather, the statements were admitted to demonstrate that Blakeney’s statements were inconsistent as to the events of that morning and to elicit more information from Blakeney. Additionally, Blakeney argues that it was error not to give a limiting instruction to the jury prior to the jury’s viewing of the videotape. Counsel did not request a limiting instruction, and the trial court is not required to issue sua sponte an M.R.E. 404(b) limiting instruction. Issue 4: Miranda rights Blakeney argues that her first videotaped interview, which was conducted on the day of the murders, should not have been admitted into evidence as she had not been informed of her Miranda rights prior to or during the interview. The threshold question in a Miranda rights analysis is whether the defendant was in custody and being interrogated when the statement in question was made. A subject is in custody when his right to leave freely has been restricted. Blakeney was initially brought to the sheriff’s office as a witness. It was only after the first interview concluded, and more information was obtained in a subsequent interview, that she became a suspect in the murders and was taken into custody. Therefore, the statements made by Blakeney were admissible as evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
