Tucker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01265-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01265-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-23-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conspiracy to commit voter fraud - Hearsay - Prosecutorial misconduct - Comment by judge - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-14-2009 Appealed from: Benton County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew Howorth Disposition: ADA M. TUCKER CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT VOTER FRAUD AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE FIRST YEAR TO SERVE IN AN MDOC FACILITY AND THE SECOND YEAR UNDER HOUSE ARREST, WITH THREE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A $5,000 FINE CLINT MOFFITT CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT VOTER FRAUD AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE FIRST TWO YEARS TO SERVE IN AN MDOC FACILITY AND THE THIRD YEAR UNDER HOUSE ARREST, WITH TWO YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A $5,000 FINE. District Attorney: BENJAMIN F. CREEKMORE Case Number: BK2008-010C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ada M. Tucker and Clint Moffitt |
DAVID G. HILL, RONALD D. MICHAEL, SETH WESLEY POUNDS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT, SCOTT STUART | ||
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: | Conspiracy to commit voter fraud - Hearsay - Prosecutorial misconduct - Comment by judge - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ada Tucker and Clint Moffitt were convicted of conspiracy to commit voter fraud. The circuit court sentenced Tucker to five years, with the first year to be served in a MDOC facility and the second year under house arrest, with three years of post-release supervision. Moffitt was sentenced to five years, with the first two years to be served in a MDOC facility and the third year under house arrest, with two years of post-release supervision. Both appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay The defendants argue that despite their timely objection, a witness was allowed to testify about hearsay statements and she was allowed to talk about subject matter not brought out during cross-examination. Trial courts are given broad discretion in allowing or disallowing redirect examination of witnesses, and when defense attorneys inquire into a subject matter during cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, prosecutors unquestionably are entitled to elaborate on the subject matter during redirect. In this case, defense counsel clearly elicited the subject matter on cross-examination, and the State had the right to develop it on re-direct. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct The defendants argue that they were denied their fundamental rights to a fair trial due to the introduction of unsubstantiated and prejudicial evidence by the State during a speaking objection. By failing to make a specific objection, defense counsel prevented the trial court from making a proper ruling and/or taking corrective action. Instead, defense counsel compelled an express ruling on an ore tenus motion for mistrial, which was denied. The trial court will not be held in error for a ruling the court did not have an opportunity to make. In addition, the prosecutor’s statement did not necessitate a mistrial. Though improper, the statement did not create an unjust prejudice against the defendants so as to result in a decision influenced by prejudice. Issue 3: Comment by judge The defendants argue that the trial court made a biased statement during the cross-examination of an investigator which called into question the neutrality, fairness, and impartiality a trial court must hold in the presence of the jury. The trial judge always must be circumspect and unbiased, at all times displaying neutrality and fairness in the trial, and consideration for the constitutional rights of the accused. Here, the trial judge’s comment is harmless. From the context of the statement, it is clear that the trial court was not exhibiting favoritism toward the State or bias toward the defendants. The trial court handled the matter in the manner the court deemed appropriate and provided a curative instruction. Issue 4: Jury instructions The defendants argue that the trial court erred when it refused to grant defense jury instructions concerning the elements the State must prove in order to convict the defendants of conspiracy to commit voter fraud. They contend they were prejudiced by the alternative instructions given concerning the elements, due to the term “individuals” being inserted as opposed to “Catina Taylor.” Both defendants were charged with conspiring to influence the absentee vote of “individuals.” No mention was made of Catina Taylor. Thus, there was no error. The defendants argue that the trial court erred by refusing to grant an accomplice testimony instruction. For a defendant to be entitled to a cautionary jury instruction, it is only necessary that the accomplice’s testimony be uncorroborated. Here, the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Catina, who acted as a “confidential informant” for the State. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny proposed jury instruction. Both the accomplice’s testimony and Catina’s testimony were corroborated by the videotape. And the information contained on the videotape was the most damning evidence against the defendants. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence The defendants argue that the only evidence presented by the State to establish a conspiracy between the defendants was the conflicting testimony of alleged co-conspirator. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to support the defendants’ convictions of conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Contrary to the defendants’ main contention on this issue, the State’s case did not rest solely on the testimony of the conspirator. There also was Catina’s testimony, as well as the videotape and what it revealed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
