Clark v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00946-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-00946-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-21-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Right to confront witnesses - Testimonial statement - Limiting instructions Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-2002 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 54 years. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 00-490CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Clifton Clark a/k/a Clifton Burns Clark, III |
ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Armed robbery - Right to confront witnesses - Testimonial statement - Limiting instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clifton Clark was convicted of armed robbery. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to his sentence, and the court sentenced Clark to 54 years. Clark appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to confront witnesses Clark argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine a witness because the court admitted into evidence, over objection, his accomplice’s statement after the accomplice refused to testify. Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation. Clark’s accomplice unquestionably gave a testimonial statement to the officer regarding the armed robbery. Although the accomplice initially took the stand at trial, he promptly informed the trial court that he would not testify. The court allowed the officer to read the statement to the jury in spite of Clark’s objection. Because Clark was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the accomplice, the court erred in admitting the testimonial statement. Such an error is harmless, however, where the testimony was merely cumulative of other overwhelming and largely uncontroverted evidence properly before the jury. Taking into account the wealth of evidence against Clark, particularly the testimony of his roommate and former girlfriend, the violation was harmless error. Issue 2: Limiting instructions Clark argues that the court erred by refusing his two requested limiting instructions concerning his accomplice’s statement. Since the admission of the statement was harmless error, any error by the court in refusing to give the requested limiting instructions regarding that statement was, at most, harmless as well. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
