Clark v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00549-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-05-2010
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Felonious child abuse - Mistrial - Judge's comments - Suppession of testimony - Exhibits - M.R.E. 401 - Prior inconsistent statement - M.R.E. 613 - Jury instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-08-2008
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas
Disposition: Count II: Conviction of felonious abuse/battery of a child and sentence of eighteen (18) years, with six (6) years suspended, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; Count III: Conviction of felonious abuse/battery of a child and sentence of eighteen (18) years, with six (6) years suspended, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; Sentences in Counts ll and lll shall run concurrently with each other and consecutively to any and all sentences previously imposed.
District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen
Case Number: 2005-0025

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Wanda Clark




CHERYL ANN WEBSTER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    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: Felonious child abuse - Mistrial - Judge's comments - Suppession of testimony - Exhibits - M.R.E. 401 - Prior inconsistent statement - M.R.E. 613 - Jury instruction

    Summary of the Facts: Wanda Clark was convicted of two counts of felonious child abuse and sentenced on each count to eighteen years, with six years suspended. She appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Mistrial Clark argues that a mistrial was warranted, because the trial court’s comments to the victim after she testified had deprived Clark of a fair trial. A finding of mistrial is reserved for those instances where the trial court cannot take any action which would correct improper occurrences inside or outside the courtroom. Where no serious and irreparable damage was engendered by an improper remark, a curative instruction is deemed sufficient to remove the taint from the minds of the jurors. Here, the trial court acknowledged that its comments might have been improper, and it gave a curative instruction stating that the court’s comments had not been intended as commentary on the believability of Hailey’s testimony and requiring the jury to disregard the comments. Thus, the trial court properly admonished the jury. Issue 2: Suppression of testimony Clark argues that a family protection specialist was improperly allowed to bolster the testimony of the victim; the witness gave opinion evidence on confidential matters; the witness opined that the victim was placed into DHS custody due to the severity of the injuries as a criminal act committed by Clark, which usurped the province of the jury; and the trial court permitted the witness to testify about Clark’s statements made to the witness during the home investigation and allowed the State to cross-examine Clark using those statements. The first three of Clark’s arguments are procedurally barred, because Clark did not present them to the trial court by objecting to the aspects of the witness’s testimony of which she now complains. With regard to her final argument, Clark was not under arrest during the questioning and she was in her own home and free to terminate the interview. Absent an arrest, interrogation in the familiar surroundings of one's own home is generally not deemed custodial. Nothing indicated that Clark believed that she was going to jail rather than temporarily being detained. Issue 3: Exhibits Clark argues that the trial court erred in excluding exhibits she sought to introduce, because this prevented her from presenting her theory of the case, which was that the victim was injured by someone other than Clark. She also argues that her right of cross-examination was violated because she was unable to question the victim about the events described in the exhibits. Although wide latitude must be afforded during cross-examination, any matters probed on cross-examination must be relevant. All evidence admitted in support of the defendant’s theory of the case must comport with the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. M.R.E. 401 provides that evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence is relevant evidence. The trial court properly excluded three of the exhibits from evidence and restricted Clark from cross-examination concerning them. The trial court properly determined that the documentation of the victim’s sexual conduct and her behavior at school was not probative of whether Clark or someone else had abused her. With regard to the remaining exhibit, the victim’s statements to the principal were inconsistent with her trial testimony about her living conditions. The proper predicate for a prior inconsistent statement under M.R.E. 613 requires the witness be asked whether or not on a specific date, at a specific place, and in the presence of specific persons, the witness made a particular statement. If the witness denies or cannot recollect having made the prior statement, or otherwise fails to acknowledge the prior statement, then extrinsic evidence of the statement is admissible. 34. After laying a predicate, Clark questioned the victim about her prior inconsistent statements to the principal. The victim testified that she did not recall having made the statements. At that point, extrinsic evidence of her prior inconsistent statements was admissible under Rule 613(b). However, the trial court’s error in refusing to admit the school referral form into evidence did not prejudice Clark. Substantial testimony was before the jury concerning prior inconsistent statements by the victim. Issue 4: Jury instruction Clark argues that the court erred in refusing one of her instructions, because it was the only jury instruction that articulated her theory of the case. An accused has a fundamental right to have her theory of the case presented to the jury, but the right is not absolute. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Here, an instruction was given which fully informed the jury that, if it believed someone else had caused the injuries, or if it did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark had caused the injuries, then it was to acquit. Thus, the court did not err in refusing Clark’s instruction.


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