Edmonson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01088-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Inducement to influence public official - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Comments by judge - Sufficiency of evidence - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 609 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2003 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTION OF INDUCEMENT TO ACCOMPLISH AN OFFICIAL ACT INVOLVING PUBLIC FUNDS AND PUBLIC TRUST, BRIBERY AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THREE YEARS TO SERVE AND TWO YEARS SUSPENDED ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION WITH COMMUNITY SERVICE. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2002-153-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Thaddeus Edmonson |
MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL
PAMELA LYNN HUDDLESTON |
||
| 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: | Inducement to influence public official - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Comments by judge - Sufficiency of evidence - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 609 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thaddeus Edmonson was convicted of two violations of inducement to influence a public official. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with two years suspended on post-release supervision with community service. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts Edmonson argues that the court improperly admitted testimony of other bribes paid to Edmonson. Under M.R.E. 404(b), proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences. Here, the statements regarding the bribes are part of the conversation regarding the bribes at issue and how a meeting of the minds occurred regarding the price to be paid. These statements are intimately intertwined with the ultimate issue, how much Edmonson would have had to be paid. Issue 2: Comments by judge Edmonson argues that he was prejudiced by the remarks made by the court to the jury prior to their deliberations explaining to them that another jury would be present to hear another case which appeared on the court’s docket, but that the court would try be quiet so as not to disturb the jury during their deliberations. The statements of the trial judge seem to indicate a desire to explain court procedure to the jury as well as keeping the jury informed of what would be going on in the courtroom while they were in deliberation. These statements are neutral in nature and not made for the purpose of limiting the duration of jury deliberation. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Edmonson argues that the State failed to prove each element of its case-in-chief and therefore, no fair-minded juror could have found him guilty of the crime charged. As the videotaped meeting clearly shows, Edmonson accepted payment of $5,000, and acknowledged having previously accepted an additional $2,500, in return for his aid in securing the city council’s approval of the Grandview Drive project. Reasonable and fair-minded jurors could believe the testimony presented. Issue 4: Limit on cross-examination Edmonson argues that he was not able to fully cross-examine one of the witnesses, where he sought to inquire about other lawsuits in which the witness was involved. The court ruled that the testimony sought to be elicited from the witness would not be allowed by M.R.E. 609. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
