Weems v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-02011-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-02011-COA ; 2007-CT-02011-SCT ; 2007-CT-02011-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Feloniously taking contraband onto premises of Mississippi State Penitentiary - Admission of testimony - M.R.E. 607 - M.R.E. 613 - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence 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: 10-16-2006 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: CONVICTED OF TAKING CONTRABAND ON THE PREMISES OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY AND SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO BE COMPLETED IN THE INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM AND TO PAY A $3,000 FINE District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2005-0061(CM)(S) |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Betty Weems |
JULIE ANN EPPS |
||
| 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: | Feloniously taking contraband onto premises of Mississippi State Penitentiary - Admission of testimony - M.R.E. 607 - M.R.E. 613 - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Betty Weems was convicted for the offense of willfully and feloniously taking contraband onto the premises of the Mississippi State Penitentiary. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of testimony Weems argues that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to question her about a letter from her son. Weems’s counsel did not make contemporaneous objection. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Under M.R.E. 607, the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party. The prosecutor sought to impeach Weems by offering statements she purportedly had made to the officer and a letter she supposedly had received. This evidence could have been admitted through the officer or as an exhibit, and both would have impeached Weems’s testimony and provided positive evidence of her guilt. However, the prosecutor only asked Weems about whether she had made statements to the officer and if she had received the letter. Weems denied the statements and the receipt of the letter. Evidence, which is otherwise inadmissible, may be used for impeachment purposes under M.R.E. 613. Here, the prosecutor’s effort was an attempt to impeach Weems’s testimony under Rule 613. However, the effort to impeach either failed, or it was abandoned. Had the prosecutor argued that during closing argument this information was evidence admitted against Weems, then this could possibly be considered error. However, since it was not used by the prosecutor, it is not reversible error. Weems also argues that it was reversible error for the prosecutor to ask Weems if she thought that the officers had lied when they wrote up the report. Weems failed to object to this question during cross-examination. Accordingly, the objection is waived, and the issue cannot be raised on appeal. In addition, the prosecutor asked Weems this question in order to attack her credibility. It does not rise to the level of tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. Issue 2: Closing argument Weems argues that the prosecutor argued facts which were not in the evidence during closing argument. There was no contemporaneous objection made at trial which bars the issue on appeal. In addition, the prosecutor’s argument was based on inferences from the facts that were in the record. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Weems argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to object to all of the issues raised in this appeal. Despite counsel’s failure to object, there was no underlying reversible error. The record on appeal is insufficient to show affirmatively ineffective assistance of counsel of constitutional dimensions. As such, Weems may present an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a motion for post-conviction collateral relief if she so chooses. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Weems testified that she brought money into Parchman, an MDOC facility. Although Weems denied knowingly bringing the money inside Parchman, an officer testified that she found the money inside Weems’s bra. Accordingly, there was sufficient testimony to support the jury's verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
