King v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01509-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-ka-01509-sct ; 2008-KA-01509-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-26-2010 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder, Aggravated assault & Conspiracy - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony 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: 08-23-2006 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: Count I: Conviction of conspiracy and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions. Count II: Conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, wtih conditions. Count III: Conviction of aggravated assault and sentence of fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions. Count IV: Conviction of aggravated assault and sentence of fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions. Sentences in Counts I, II, III and IV shall run concurrently with each other. District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2004-148 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Marvin Terrell King |
HOWARD Q. DAVIS, JR., OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: PHILLIP BROADHEAD, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, JR. | ||
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, Aggravated assault & Conspiracy - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marvin King was convicted of murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and conspiracy. The court sentenced King to life for murder, fifteen years for each aggravated-assault conviction, and twenty years for conspiracy, with all sentences to run concurrently. King appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence King argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of murder, because the State’s evidence consisted of accomplice testimony that was substantially impeached on cross-examination and the evidence evinced an incomplete police investigation. Both the accomplices gave prior statements to the police that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that King committed all the elements of murder. Generally, the resolution of conflicts in the witness testimony is a matter for the jury, not the court. Concerning the sufficiency of the evidence when a conviction rests upon accomplice testimony, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict the accused. But if the accomplice testimony is uncorroborated and is unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached, then accomplice testimony is insufficient, and the trial court must direct a verdict of not guilty. In this case, the testimony of the accomplices was not unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached. King also argues that the State’s evidence rested upon an incomplete police investigation into the possibility that another person was the second shooter. However, the police determined that the other person had checked into a hotel in Greenville at approximately the same time as the shooting. Thus, the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to enable the jury to find King guilty of the essential elements of murder. Issue 2: Expert testimony King argues that Dr. Hayne went beyond his expertise as a forensic pathologist by testifying in the field of weaponry and ballistics. King admits that he did not object contemporaneously to Dr. Hayne’s testimony. This issue is procedurally barred for lack of an objection. But even if Dr. Hayne’s testimony exceeded the scope of his expertise in forensic pathology, its admission does not implicate plain-error review. Even without the testimony that the wound was consistent with having been fired by the rifle, the evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find King guilty of murder. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
