Lynch v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01874-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-05-2010
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cellular phones while confined in correctional facility - Impeachment - M.R.E. 613(b) - Prior inconsistent statement
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-06-2008
Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court
Judge: Lester F. Williamson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND IN JAIL AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PROBATION, PAROLE, EARNED RELEASE, EARNED TIME, GOOD TIME, TRUSTEE STATUS OR ANY TYPE OF REDUCTION OF SENTENCE AND TO PAY A FINE OF $500
District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell
Case Number: 2008-26

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: DAVID LYNCH




LESLIE S. LEE, JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS  

    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: Possession of cellular phones while confined in correctional facility - Impeachment - M.R.E. 613(b) - Prior inconsistent statement

    Summary of the Facts: David Lynch was convicted of possession of cellular phones while confined in a correctional facility. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Lynch argues that the court erred by allowing the State to impeach Lynch with his attorney’s statement. However, Lynch’s attorney’s representation was used only for impeachment purpose on a collateral and quite trivial matter — whether Lynch had heard or read his discovery. Lynch’s attorney’s statements did not touch on his client’s guilt, much less rise to the level of a tacit admission of guilt on the underlying phone-possession charge. Pursuant to M.R.E. 613(b), unsworn prior inconsistent statements of a witness may be used to impeach the witness’s credibility. However, this case does not involve a prior statement from a testifying witness. Also, there is nothing in the record to establish that Lynch agreed with his counsel’s representation that he had read the deputies’ statements. Absent such an acknowledgment, Lynch cannot be said to have adopted his attorney’s statements as his own. Thus, Lynch’s attorney’s representations were not prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613(b) and should not have been used for impeachment purposes under these circumstances. While it was error for the circuit court to allow the State to use Lynch’s attorney’s statements for impeachment purposes, the error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of Lynch’s guilt.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court