Pruitt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00265-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00265-COA ; 2010-CT-00265-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence - Recanted testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2010 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CV09417-PFM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joe Solomon Pruitt |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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: | Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence - Recanted testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joe Pruitt was convicted of armed robbery, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pruitt argues that he is entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence based upon the recanted testimony of a witness. Pruitt names the witness as the only witness who could identify Pruitt as a knowing and willing participate in the armed robbery. As a general rule, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and is regarded with suspicion; and it is the right and duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. The fact that a witness may change his testimony after the trial does not necessarily entitle the defendant to a new trial. A defendant must show that the newly discovered evidence, such as recanted testimony, would probably produce a different verdict. In this case, the witness was not an indispensable witness since another witness’s testimony also confirmed that Pruitt had willingly participated in the robbery. Further, Pruitt failed to show that the recanted testimony would probably produce a different verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
