Franklin v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01923-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01923-COA ; 2008-CT-01923-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-01-2011
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior inconsistent statement - Recanted trial testimony - Limiting instruction - Self-defense instruction - Prosecutorial misconduct
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J. Without Separate Written Opinion
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-27-2007
Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court
Judge: Albert B. Smith III
Disposition: Convicted of Depraved-Heart Murder and Sentenced to Life in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell
Case Number: 2007-0091

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Patrick Franklin




JULIE ANN EPPS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY, LADONNA C. HOLLAND, SCOTT STUART, STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    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: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior inconsistent statement - Recanted trial testimony - Limiting instruction - Self-defense instruction - Prosecutorial misconduct

    Summary of the Facts: Patrick Franklin was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Franklin argues that the State was required to prove that he had killed the victim and that it was not done in self-defense. Franklin also argues that the evidence shows that he killed the victim in self-defense; thus, the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. Once the defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The question of whether a defendant acted in self-defense or in defense of others is a question for the jury to resolve. Based on the verdict, the jury resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of Franklin’s conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could have found that the State had proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 2: Prior inconsistent statement Franklin argues that the circuit court erred by allowing a witness’s prior inconsistent statement to be used as substantive evidence. A witness may be impeached by the party calling him or her if that party shows that he or she was surprised by the witness’s testimony and that the witness has become hostile. The prior inconsistent statement may be admitted for impeachment purposes only; it cannot be used as substantive evidence. The prior inconsistent statement in this case was not used as substantive evidence of Franklin’s guilt. The State showed that it was surprised by a witness’s testimony, and the circuit court ruled that she had become a hostile witness. The circuit court properly excluded the speculative part of her prior statement in which she said that Franklin probably killed the victim. Thereafter, the State properly used the witness’s prior statement to impeach her regarding her opinion as to the nature of Franklin’s threat. Issue 3: Recanted trial testimony Franklin argues that the circuit court erred by not granting his motion for a new trial based on a witness’s recanted testimony and evidence that the police made improper inducements to the witness in exchange for his testimony. To warrant the grant of a new trial based on a witness’s recanted testimony, Franklin had to prove that the recantation was material, and the evidence is such that the result would change if a new trial is granted. The record shows that there is no recanted testimony to consider, and the evidence supports the circuit court’s ruling that the witness did not receive any improper inducements from the police in exchange for his testimony. Issue 4: Limiting instruction Franklin argues that the circuit court should have given a limiting instruction to the jury, stating that prior inconsistent statements could only be used for impeachment purposes and not as substantive evidence. Alternatively, Franklin argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction to that effect. If Franklin wanted a limiting instruction concerning the witnesses’ impeached testimony, he could have requested one. A limiting instruction may be provided to the jury at the request of the party affected. The circuit court may give a limiting instruction upon its own motion. However, the circuit court is not obligated to sua sponte give a limiting instruction. On direct appeal, the Court may consider the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. Neither criterion has been satisfied in this case. Issue 5: Self-defense instruction Franklin argues that there was plain error in the self-defense jury instructions, which requires reversal. Reviewing the jury instructions given as a whole, the jury was properly instructed regarding the State’s burden to prove that Franklin did not act in self-defense. Because one of the instructions about which Franklin complains was requested by Franklin, he may not now complain that the instruction was erroneous. Issue 6: Prosecutorial misconduct Franklin argues that the prosecutor made several improper comments during his closing statement, which requires reversal based on the plain-error doctrine. Franklin’s trial counsel did not object to any comments made by the prosecutor during his closing statement. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred from review. In addition, when put in context, the prosecutor’s statements were not improper.


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