Easterling v. State
Docket Number: | 2010-KA-02075-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-02075-COA ; 2010-CT-02075-SCT |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated DUI - Prior criminal charge - M.R.E. 608(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Restricting closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-02-2010 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: Prentiss Harrell Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED DUI AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS TO SERVE TWO YEARS OF HOUSE ARREST AND THIRTEEN YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION WITH FIVE YEARS REPORTING, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K-2008-405H |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Taryn N. Easterling a/k/a Taryn Nicole Easterling a/k/a Taryn Easterling |
RICHARD V. DYMOND |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
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: | Aggravated DUI - Prior criminal charge - M.R.E. 608(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Restricting closing argument |
Summary of the Facts: | Taryn Easterling was convicted of aggravated DUI. The circuit court sentenced Easterling to a total term of twenty years: five years in custody; two years in the Intensive Supervision House Arrest Program; and upon successful completion of the program, thirteen years of post-release supervision with five years of reporting. Easterling appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior criminal charge Easterling argues that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to introduce her prior DUI charge. Questioning Easterling about a prior occasion where she admittedly lied under oath on a relevant matter was appropriate to test her credibility as a witness under M.R.E. 608(b). However, the State’s question inquiring into the nature of the criminal charge, a DUI, may well have been a relevant question where the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under M.R.E. 403, particularly considering Easterling was then on trial for aggravated DUI. Defense counsel did not object to the question concerning the nature of the prior charge but, inexplicably, ask his client to repeat her answer. Further, defense counsel also failed to object to the district attorney’s one reference to the prior DUI in her closing argument. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection constitutes waiver of an issue on appeal. Thus, Easterling’s contentions are waived. Issue 2: Closing argument Easterling argues that the circuit court erred in restricting defense counsel’s closing arguments. Defense counsel attempted to read verbatim from a United States Supreme Court’s opinion. Since the crux of the prosecution’s case depended on the testimony of three eyewitnesses who said Easterling was driving, defense counsel attempted to warn the jury of the alleged unreliability of such eyewitness testimony. The district attorney objected to defense counsel’s verbatim reading from a legal opinion based upon the fact that the reading was a federal opinion taken out of context and not related to factual evidence presented in the case. Counselors are clearly limited to arguing facts introduced in evidence, deductions and conclusions he may reasonably draw therefrom, and the application of the law to the facts. Here, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in restricting defense counsel’s closing argument. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court