Osborne v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00658-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00658-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2011 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Mistrial - Improper statement by juror - Impeachment of witness - M.R.E. 607 - M.R.E. 611 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Graves, P.J., and Dickinson, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2008 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Albert B. Smith, III Disposition: The jury found Osborne guilty of capital murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Osborne filed a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative, a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, which the trial court denied. The trial court also denied Osborne’s two pro se motions as both procedurally barred and without merit. District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLON Case Number: 2007-028-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Emerson Osborne a/k/a Emmerson Osborn |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: JUSTIN T. COOK |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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 - Mistrial - Improper statement by juror - Impeachment of witness - M.R.E. 607 - M.R.E. 611 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Emerson Osborne was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial Osborne argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial after his counsel informed the court of a juror’s improper statement made during voir dire. He argues that the juror’s statement during voir dire expressed a “conclusion of guilt” and a conclusion regarding the appropriate outcome. While Osborne does not point to a particular question the juror failed to answer during voir dire, the record does not indicate that she withheld information when she was questioned about her impartiality. Another juror’ allegation is the only evidence supporting this conclusion, and the trial court found that it lacked merit. But, Osborne suffered no prejudice from the juror serving during the guilt phase of his trial. To show prejudice, Osborne must demonstrate the trial court’s determination that the jury was fair and impartial was clearly erroneous. Before trial, the court and both attorneys repeatedly asked venire members about their ability to remain impartial and decide the case on the evidence presented. Venire members confirmed their ability to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at trial. During individual questioning about her views on the death penalty, the juror affirmed that she would follow the law. Her post-trial questioning did not contradict her answers on voir dire. She confirmed that she could perform her duties as required by law and that she had been impartial before Osborne’s trial. Thus, Osborne’s claim for relief on this ground is denied. Issue 2: Impeachment of witness Osborne argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach its own witness without an on-the-record determination that the witness was hostile. M.R.E. 607 provides that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him. Before a party may introduce unsworn pretrial inconsistent statements of its witness for impeachment purposes, a party must show either surprise or unexpected hostility. In this case, the record does not clearly indicate that the witness’s testimony at trial differed from her pretrial statement. Also, Osborne suffered no prejudice from the admission of any testimony elicited from the witness. The record does not indicate that the witness’s prior inconsistent statement was ever offered for impeachment purposes, and her testimony did not provide any evidence linking Osborne to the crime. Under M.R.E. 611, the decision to allow a party to ask leading questions during direct examination rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Osborne cannot show that part of the witness’s testimony elicited through leading questions prejudiced a substantial right, since testimony from other witnesses implicated Osborne as responsible for the murder. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Osborne argues that his conviction was based on the unreliable, inconsistent testimony of an accomplice and an informant. The jury must weigh witness testimony and determine its credibility. After hearing the two witnesses, the jury was in the best position to determine the weight and credibility of their testimony. Osborne also argues that the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice to the crime was suspect and contradictory. Only slight corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony is required to sustain a conviction. The testimony that must be corroborated is the part connecting the defendant to the crime. If the testimony is not corroborated, a cautionary jury instruction is required. Here, the accomplice’s testimony connected Osborne to the robbery that resulted in the victim’s death. While the accomplice had provided inconsistent accounts of the events, he explained his actions at trial. His testimony was reasonable and not substantially impeached. Further, his testimony was corroborated. With regard to the informant, he specifically testified that no one had made promises to him in exchange for his testimony, and the jury was in the best position to evaluate his credibility in light of all his testimony. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury’s guilty verdict did not contradict the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
