Lattimore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01853-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01853-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-26-2007 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Pre-trial identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Admission of pipe - Juror misconduct - Closing argument - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, J. Dissent Joined By : Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-25-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: The Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles Case Number: 2000-405 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Terry Lee Lattimore a/k/a Terry L. Lattimore, Sr. |
WHITMAN D. MOUNGER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Pre-trial identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Admission of pipe - Juror misconduct - Closing argument - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry Lattimore was sentenced to life in prison without parole for capital murder. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Pretrial identification The lineup was conducted eight days after Lattimore was arrested pursuant to a warrant. The law enforcement officers should not have conducted the identification proceeding knowing that Lattimore’s counsel could not be present. However, it is clear that the witness’s in-court identification was based upon her view of the defendant at the scene of the crime and not based upon the lineup. Therefore, while the lineup itself was constitutional error, it is not fatal to this case. Where constitutional error in pre-trial identification has occurred, the state must show by clear and convincing evidence that subsequent in-court identifications are not based upon the offensive lineup, but instead have an independent origin. The witness testified that at the time of the attack on her husband, she had a clear view of the assailants through her kitchen window. While on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, she was standing at the window, watching the two men as her husband was being beaten. She was consistent from the time she first described Lattimore on the day of the murder until the day of trial that Lattimore was a slender, light-skinned black man with short hair. She successfully picked out Lattimore during the pre-trial lineup. Therefore, substantial credible evidence supports the judgment of the trial court with regard to both the pre-trial and in-court identifications of Lattimore. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Lattimore argues that he was given ineffective assistance of counsel. The public defender was assigned to represent both Lattimore and Brown after both men made statements implicating the other. Had the attorney continued the dual representation, the Sixth Amendment violation would have tainted the trial proceeding. As it was, however, alternate counsel was appointed for Brown soon after the lineup occurred. Thus Lattimore had competent, unconflicted counsel at all times from that point forward. Lattimore argues that his trial counsel failed to adequately depose the victim’s neighbor. The fact that the neighbor was not asked certain questions about the killer’s identity does not render counsel’s services ineffective. Lattimore argues that his trial counsel failed to move for a new trial after a hearing was conducted regarding juror misconduct. Lattimore has made no viable showing that, had counsel made said motion, the trial court would likely have ruled in his favor. Lattimore argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the in-court identification and to certain remarks made by the state during closing argument. There is no showing that the court would have given Lattimore a new trial based upon his own self-serving testimony. In addition, other mistrial motions were made throughout the trial, proving that counsel was active in representing and protecting the rights of his client. The public defender’s overall performance was within the realm of suitable performance. Issue 3: Admission of pipe When there is evidence that the weapon could have caused the injury, and some connection between the defendant and the weapon exists, the object is deemed relevant and admissible. Ample proof existed for a jury to conclude that the metal pipe introduced by the state was the murder weapon. Issue 4: Juror misconduct There was testimony that the boyfriend of one of the jurors said he had spoken to her, via cell phone, during deliberations. The trial court heard the contradictory testimony and found no cause for a new trial. The trial court proceeded properly, upon being made aware of potential juror misconduct, and heard testimony to determine what, in fact, happened and whether there was any improper influence warranting a new trial. There was no error in the manner in which the trial court handled this matter, nor in its ruling. Issue 5: Closing argument Lattimore argues that the state made an egregious misrepresentation during its closing argument. However, the testimony was indeed in evidence, elicited by the defense itself. Issue 6: Weight of evidence Lattimore admitted to being at the scene of the crime. The defense presented no evidence in its case-in-chief to prove that Brown, not Lattimore, was the actual murderer. Although the defense attempted to impeach each of the prosecution’s witnesses, the jury ultimately found the prosecution’s case to be more believable. Based upon eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, the verdict cannot be said to constitute an unconscionable injustice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
