Eldridge v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-00448-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-20-2011
Opinion Author: Graves, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Burglary - Fair trial - Disqualification of prosecuting attorney
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2008
Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac C. Richardson
Disposition: After a one-day trial, Eldridge was found guilty of burglary by a Rankin County jury and sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years in the custody of the MDOC. The trial court denied Eldridge's motion for JNOW and for a new trial.
District Attorney: Michael Guest
Case Number: 18,469

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Kevin Eldridge




CHRIS N. K. GANNER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS  

    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: Burglary - Fair trial - Disqualification of prosecuting attorney

    Summary of the Facts: Kevin Eldridge was convicted of one count of burglary and sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty-five years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Eldridge argues that, because he previously had consulted with one of the prosecuting attorneys regarding his case when that prosecuting attorney was a public defender, the trial court should have granted him a new trial. In addition, Eldridge argues that his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective by her failure to become aware of a conflict of interest with one of the prosecuting attorneys and failing to raise it with the trial court. A prosecuting attorney is disqualified from acting in a criminal case if he has previously represented or has been consulted professionally by the accused with respect to the offense charged. The subsequent prosecution by an attorney who has previously gained confidential information from the accused relative to the charges against him is inherently incompatible with the right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial. However, if the State can meet the burden of showing that the accused’s confidentiality remained intact, then the Court will not require the prosecuting attorney to disqualify or recuse himself or herself. The State must show that the assistant district attorney had absolutely no participation in the case, from the time of withdrawal through adjudication; divulged no confidential information; and notified the other party promptly upon becoming aware of the conflict of interest. In this case, the State cannot show that the assistant district attorney had absolutely no participation in the case, from the time of withdrawal through adjudication. While the record is unclear as to when Duggan, in his role as a public defender, withdrew from representing Eldridge, it is clear that Duggan, now an assistant district attorney, actively participated in the prosecution of Eldridge. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court