145 So. 3d 601
Miss.2014Background
- Police obtained and executed an arrest warrant for Joel Baskin for aggravated assault; officers testified they found crack cocaine on his person during a search incident to arrest.
- Defense moved at a suppression hearing to exclude the search if done without probable cause; the arrest-warrant affidavit was never introduced and the warrant contained no factual basis; defense made no argument challenging the warrant and the court admitted the search results.
- At trial, two officers testified they found cocaine; defense witnesses Darskeika Wallace and Michael Forrest testified they observed the arrest and that nothing was found in Baskin’s pocket.
- Before calling defense witnesses, defense counsel moved to exclude prior convictions the State intended to use for impeachment; the trial court allowed the State to impeach Wallace with misdemeanor petty larceny and misdemeanor embezzlement.
- Jury convicted Baskin of possession of cocaine; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held both the suppression challenge and the Rule 609 objection were waived; this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Baskin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arrest warrant was issued without probable cause and suppression was required | The suppression motion and transcript show counsel challenged probable cause for the warrant | Trial record lacked argument or evidence attacking warrant; issue not raised below | Issue is procedurally barred on appeal; no plain error found because record contains no evidence undermining probable cause (affirmed as to this issue) |
| Whether the trial court erred by permitting impeachment of defense witness Wallace with a petty-larceny conviction under Rule 609 | Admission was improper; petty larceny is not crimen falsi and not admissible under 609(a)(2) | Prosecutor argued petty larceny shows criminal falsehood and is admissible | Trial court clearly erred; petty larceny inadmissible under Rule 609(a)(2); error not harmless given centrality of Wallace’s credibility; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether any error in admitting petty larceny was harmless given Wallace’s embezzlement conviction was also admitted | The cumulative effect of the improper conviction substantially prejudiced the defense because the case hinged on credibility | The embezzlement conviction (crimen falsi) provided sufficient impeachment, so any additional misdemeanor was harmless | Majority: error not harmless because the improper petty-larceny impeachment materially increased prejudice; Concurrence: would find error harmless because embezzlement was admissible and sufficient to impeach |
Key Cases Cited
- Conerly v. State, 760 So.2d 737 (Miss. 2000) (appellate court may address plain error when record contains affidavit or evidence showing lack of probable cause)
- Gilmore v. State, 119 So.3d 278 (Miss. 2013) (harmless-error standard and reversal where impeachment error affected close credibility contest)
- Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 1983) (general rule against addressing issues raised first on appeal)
- Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010 (Miss. 2000) (theft crimes generally fall outside Rule 609(a)(2) crimen falsi list)
- Blackman v. State, 659 So.2d 583 (Miss. 1995) (prior holdings excluding theft offenses from 609(a)(2) impeachment)
- Hopkins v. State, 639 So.2d 1247 (Miss. 1993) (limitations on using non-crimen falsi convictions for impeachment)
- Townsend v. State, 605 So.2d 767 (Miss. 1992) (same)
- Forrest v. State, 335 So.2d 900 (Miss. 1976) (quoted harmless-error standard applied to appellate review)