Thomas v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01197-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-01197-COA ; 2007-CT-01197-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-13-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Promises to witnesses - False testimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 03-0-029 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Albert Lee Thomas, Jr. a/k/a Boo a/k/a Al Thomas a/k/a Albert Brown Thomas a/k/a Albert Lee |
BRENDA JACKSON PATTERSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 - Promises to witnesses - False testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Albert Thomas, Jr., was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Promises to witnesses Thomas argues that the State promised a witness that in exchange for his testimony, he would be released from jail; he would receive suspended sentences in two of his unrelated cases; and two of his unrelated cases would be remanded to the file. Thomas also argues that the State promised the witness’s mother that in exchange for her testimony, her son would receive this deal. The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. To establish a violation, a defendant must prove that the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Here, the defense was aware that the State was going to get the witness out of jail in exchange for his testimony and questioned him about any promises made by the prosecution on cross-examination. The witness testified that the prosecutor was going to try to get him out of jail; therefore, the jury already had reason to question his credibility and motivation for testifying. Thomas fails to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the defense would have known about the alleged additional deals made with the witness. With regard to the trial court’s conclusion that there were no promises or deals offered to the mother of the witness in exchange for her testimony, the trial court’s findings are supported by the testimony of the prosecutor and the mother, who independently testified in two separate hearings. Issue 2: False testimony Thomas argues that the witness lied about whether the prosecutor promised to have him released on bond and made any additional promises to him, and the State failed to correct the false testimony. In order to prove a due-process violation, the defendant must demonstrate that a witness for the State testified falsely; that such testimony was material; and that the prosecution knew that the testimony was false. The witness’s testimony is consistent with what the prosecutor told the trial court and the defense – that he was trying to have the witness released on bond. The prosecutor had no reason to correct the testimony. Even if the State had made additional promises to the witness – as Thomas alleges – and the witness testified falsely, Thomas does not show that this testimony was material. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
