Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00947-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00947-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2005 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Informant instruction - Continuance - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Bridges, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-06-2004 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2004-3-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eric D. Johnson |
PAMELA LYNN HUDDLESTON,
DANIEL KYLE ROBERTSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter - Informant instruction - Continuance - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eric Johnson was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Informant instruction Two witnesses who were former cellmates of Johnson were called to testify. Johnson argues that the two cellmates who testified should be viewed as informants and a cautionary instruction should have been given. A cautionary instruction may be given regarding the testimony of a witness who testifies in exchange for a reduced sentence. Here, neither of the cellmates who testified received lesser sentences for doing so. Any inherent unreliability in the witnesses’s testimony was brought out on cross-examination by Johnson’s attorney, and the jury was instructed to carefully weigh the credibility of all the witnesses in the case. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the court below in denying proposed instruction. Issue 2: Continuance Johnson argues that the court erred in refusing to grant him a continuance, requested on the day of trial, to subpoena and question the lab technician who tested Johnson’s shoes for blood. Since Johnson did not mention the denial of the continuance in his motion for a new trial, he is procedurally barred from raising that on appeal here. In addition, the import of the results to Johnson’s defense was that the test results were negative, a fact that the State stipulated to obviate the need for Johnson to call the lab technician to testify. Johnson’s defense was not substantially harmed by relying on the stipulation rather than actual testimony. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Johnson argues that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because the State failed to meet its burden of proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the evidence of numerous eyewitnesses who observed Johnson beating the victim, wiping off a knife while standing over the victim, and running from the scene, the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
