Johnson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-02016-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-27-2005
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Impeachment - Prior statement - M.R.E. 613(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-05-2003
Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court
Judge: Vernon Cotten
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of sale of more than one ounce of marijuana and sentence of twenty (20) years.
District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan
Case Number: 03-CR-046-LE-C

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Donniver Terrell Johnson




EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR.



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN  

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: Sale of controlled substance - Impeachment - Prior statement - M.R.E. 613(b)

Summary of the Facts: Donniver Johnson was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance, more than one ounce of marijuana, and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Johnson argues that the testimony of two officers as to a prior statement made by Johnson’s mother-in-law (which contradicted her testimony at trial) constituted reversible error without first affording Boyd the opportunity to claim or deny the prior statement. M.R.E. 613(b) allows the impeachment of witnesses by extrinsic evidence. M.R.E. 613(b) does not provide that the witness has to first be afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the statement before the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness. Instead, the witness must only be afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. Here, Boyd was provided the opportunity to explain or deny the prior statements.


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