Hickman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01274-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-03-2011 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Right of confrontation - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 103(a) - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Witness's character for truthfulness - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Dickinson, P.J., and Lamar, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-09-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. Case Number: 08-0-555 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Stephan Hickman |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: GEORGE T. HOLMES
LESLIE S. LEE
AAFRAM YAPHET SELLERS |
||
| 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: | Capital murder - Right of confrontation - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 103(a) - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Witness's character for truthfulness - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stephan Hickman was found guilty of capital murder with the underlying felony of robbery. The circuit court sentenced Hickman to life without parole. Hickman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right of confrontation Hickman argues that his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was erroneously restricted. Pursuant to M.R.E. 103(a), error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected. The trial court has the inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters. Here, the court held that a witness’s testimony that she was waiting on marijuana was irrelevant under M.R.E. 401 and inadmissible under M.R.E. 402. The trial court also held that the testimony was inadmissible under M.R.E. 403 and under M.R.E. 608(b) because it was not probative of the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Under Rule 608(b), a specific instance of conduct not resulting in a conviction may be inquired into on cross-examination if it reflects on the witness’s character for truthfulness. But if the past conduct did not involve lying, deceit, or dishonesty in some manner, it cannot be inquired into on cross-examination. The trial court was within its discretion in finding that the witness’s testimony that she was “waiting on some marijuana” when she spoke with Hickman had no bearing on her truthfulness. The fact that the witness expected to receive a delivery of marijuana does not involve lying, deceit, or dishonesty. Thus, Hickman’s right to confrontation was not violated. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Hickman argues that no physical evidence tied him to the victim’s death, that the accomplice’s testimony was incredible, and that the rest of the State’s evidence was merely speculative. He cites the rule that an accomplice’s testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction if the testimony is unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached. Even without the accomplice’s testimony, the State presented evidence that strongly implicated Hickman as the killer. He told another person he was going to rob the victim. He stole a gun. He was in possession of the victim’s car and was caught on surveillance video attempting to use the victim’s credit card. He also tried to find someone who lived outside his neighborhood to store the victim’s car. When this evidence is viewed along with Hickman’s confession to the accomplice, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence did not preponderate so heavily against Hickman’s guilt that a new trial is required. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
