Turner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00330-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00330-COA ; 2009-CT-00330-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Impeachment instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-06-2008 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: LEE J. HOWARD Disposition: CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD Case Number: 2002-272-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Derrick Turner |
SANFORD E. KNOTT |
|
|
| 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: | Capital murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Impeachment instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Derrick Turner was convicted for capital murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Overwhelming evidence was presented at trial to prove that the victim was brutally beaten in the course of a robbery and that her injuries resulted in death. The disputed issue during the trial was whether Turner was one of the people involved in the crime. In order to prove his involvement, the State presented the testimony of an accomplice who the State had also charged with capital murder. Turner argues that the accomplice’s testimony was unreliable and was insufficient to prove that Turner had participated in murder. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict an accused. Where there is slight corroborative evidence, the accomplice's testimony is likewise sufficient to sustain the verdict. However, such testimony should be viewed with great caution and suspicion and must be reasonable, not improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached. The accomplice’s account of Turner’s involvement in the crime was not unreasonable, improbable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached. The accomplice’s description of Turner was never contradicted. The accomplice gave an exact description of Turner; it is reasonable to infer that the accomplice mistakenly called Turner by the wrong name in the first statement. He clearly named Turner as one of the perpetrators in his second statement. All of the accomplice’s lies, except the issue of Turner’s name, relate to the accomplice’s potential involvement in the murder. It is entirely reasonable that he was able to give an account of what he saw yet attempt to distance himself from any involvement in the crime. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision. Issue 2: Jury instruction Turner argues that the circuit court improperly refused Turner’s requested jury instruction on the impeachment of witnesses, because the State admitted that the accomplice had been untruthful in his prior statements to the police. 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. A general instruction on the weight and credibility of a witness, together with the cross-examination and closing argument that reveal the inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony, is a basis to refuse an impeachment instruction. The jury in this case was instructed to consider and weigh the accomplice’s testimony as an accomplice with great care, caution, and suspicion. The inconsistencies in the accomplice’s statements do not go to the ultimate issue of whether Turner was one of the men involved in the crime. These inconsistencies were fully revealed during cross-examination and closing argument. The jury was aware that it should take caution when considering the accomplice testimony. Thus, the circuit court’s refusal of Turner’s requested impeachment instruction was not an abuse of discretion. Turner also argues that the jury should have been instructed that he could not be convicted based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice when that testimony was impeached, unreasonable, or self-contradictory. There was no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s refusal of the instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
