McKnight v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00682-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00682-COA ; 2010-CT-00682-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-01-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Prior inconsistent statements - M.R.E. 613 - Admission of videotape - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2010 Appealed from: Humphreys County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF COR REC TIONS District Attorney: Steven E. Waldrup Case Number: 6344 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kelvin McKnight |
LESLIE S. LEE
PHILLIP BROADHEAD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Prior inconsistent statements - M.R.E. 613 - Admission of videotape - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kelvin McKnight was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior inconsistent statements McKnight argues that several of the questions the prosecutor asked McKnight’s brother were not supported by the videotape. McKnight argues that it was error to allow these questions because the prosecutor had no good-faith basis for the questions. M.R.E. 613 does not require that a cross-examiner first produce proof of a witness’s prior inconsistent written or oral statement. Nevertheless, although no proof is required, the cross-examiner must have a good-faith basis for his questions. Because McKnight’s attorney did not raise a contemporaneous objection at trial, this issue is procedurally barred from appellate review unless it constitutes plain error. Any error based on this issue does not constitute plain error, because the error did not affect the outcome of the trial. The testimony of two eyewitnesses was compelling evidence that supported the jury’s verdict. Also, the videotape was played to the jury. The prosecutor played the tape during his rebuttal and again during his closing argument. The jury twice heard for itself what McKnight’s brother had told the police. To the extent the prosecutor might have misled the jury with his questions, the jury actually heard what the brother said on the videotape. Issue 2: Admission of videotape The prosecutor played the videotape of the brother’s interrogation during closing arguments. While playing the tape, the prosecutor commented on the brother’s physical appearance in the video. He argued that the brother’s appearance in the video did not support his earlier testimony that he had been severely beaten at the club. McKnight argues that the prosecutor impermissibly used the tape, which was admissible solely to impeach his brother’s testimony, as substantive evidence during closing arguments. However, the prosecutor did not use the tape as substantive evidence. The brother had testified that he had been savagely beaten at the club. During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that the brother’s physical appearance in the video was not consistent with a man who, just a few hours before the video was recorded, had been savagely beaten. Thus, the prosecutor used the tape to impeach the testimony, not as substantive evidence. Issue 3: Closing argument McKnight argues that, during closing argument, the prosecutor impermissibly instructed the jury to disregard the manslaughter instruction. This issue is procedurally barred because defense counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection at trial. Further, none of McKnight’s concerns with the jury instructions constitute plain error. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence McKnight argues that the prosecutor failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of murder. However, there was more than enough evidence to support the jury’s findings that McKnight killed the victim with deliberate design and not in self-defense. The testimonies of two eyewitnesses supported the jury’s findings. They testified that McKnight pulled out a gun and shot the victim in the head. The only real issue was whether McKnight had acted in self-defense. The witnesses testified that the victim was not threatening McKnight in any way. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support McKnight’s conviction. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel McKnight argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by his trial attorney’s deficient performance. McKnight argues that his attorney was deficient because he failed to file a single pretrial motion, with the exception of a motion for continuance. He claims that the attorney “failed to file a single motion for discovery, suppression of evidence, or any other action that could have helped his client develop the theory of self-defense at trial.” However, this discovery would not have affected the outcome of the trial. The mere fact that the attorney did not file a motion for discovery is not sufficient to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. McKnight argues that his attorney was deficient because he failed to subpoena a single witness, interview any witnesses, or conduct a reasonable factual investigation. McKnight, however, does not state exactly who should have been subpoenaed and what they would have testified to had they been subpoenaed. The allegations that defense counsel did not interview any witnesses or conduct a factual investigation appear to be only speculation and conjecture. Based on the record, it appears that the trial counsel was competent, made strategic decisions, and performed in a reasonable, although not perfect, manner in a difficult case. McKnight argues that his attorney failed to advance two meaningful theories of defense – defense of others and self-defense. Defense of others was not a viable theory of defense. Indeed, the jury was not instructed on the theory because the evidence did not support it. Also, McKnight’s attorney zealously pursued the self-defense theory. McKnight makes a broad, sweeping argument that his attorney, more or less, allowed the prosecutor to run roughshod over the defense. However, the record does not support his arguments. McKnight can renew his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, should he choose to file such a motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
