Palmer v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-02100-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2008 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 2005-10,265(1) |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cleveland C. Palmer a/k/a Cleveland Champion Palmer |
LESLIE S. LEE, JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cleveland Palmer was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Palmer argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on three instances of inaction by his trial attorney. The first alleged error stems from his defense counsel’s failure to object to an investigating officer’s testimony. The second results from his attorney’s failure to object to the admission of one of Palmer’s videotaped interviews. Palmer’s final claim of ineffective assistance of counsel stems from his attorney’s failure to review physical evidence. At trial, an officer testified that after responding to the shooting, Palmer’s wife told him: “she thought her husband . . . shot [the victim] . . . . They got into a struggle over a gun, and the gun went off and [the victim] was shot.” The alleged statement to the officer is hearsay and is, thus, inadmissible under M.R.E. 801 and 802. Nevertheless, it directly supports Palmer’s version of the incident and his characterization that the shooting was an accident. Because Palmer is unable to show resulting prejudice, the error was at most harmless. The State’s case did not depend solely on the officer’s testimony. Palmer testified he armed himself with the sawed-off shotgun before entering the victim’s apartment. The State also offered several witnesses placing Palmer in possession of the firearm. Further, expert testimony contradicted Palmer’s version of the events leading to Manning’s death. And Palmer fled from the apartment after the shooting and hid the weapon. Due to the overwhelming evidence of Palmer’s guilt, any errors resulting from the admission of the officer’s statements was harmless. With regard to Palmer’s statement, a statement by the accused is admissible if the accused was given the Miranda warnings, and then knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the rights. Palmer signed a waiver of his Miranda rights prior to engaging in his third conversation with the police. It is also important that Palmer initiated contact with the officers. Though Palmer’s initial concern dealt with his wife’s arrest, he made clear he also wished to speak generally about his case. He also maintained he understood his Miranda rights. Since Palmer knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights to counsel prior to the third interview, his trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to object to admission of the videotaped interview. With regard to Palmer’s claim regarding physical evidence, Palmer admitted carrying the stick and shotgun. He even led investigators to the site where he disposed of the shotgun. Palmer’s entire defense was based on his theory of an accidental shooting, and he fails to demonstrate how the outcome of his trial would have differed had his attorney inspected these items. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
