Esco v. State
102 So. 3d 1209
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Esco appeals a circuit court PCR denial after a jury convicted him on six counts: aggravated assault, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, and felony evasion.
- Johnson, the co-defendant, testified at Esco’s trial and pled guilty previously; Johnson later provided an affidavit recanting involvement, claiming coercion and lack of Esco’s involvement.
- Mississippi Supreme Court allowed a PCR focus on newly discovered evidence: Johnson’s recantation affidavit and related claims.
- At a 2011 evidentiary hearing, Johnson testified inconsistently; prosecutors, defense counsel, and Johnson’s own attorney testified that Johnson’s trial testimony remained credible.
- The circuit court denied PCR relief, concluding Johnson’s recantation was not credible, and observed Esco’s petition lacked merit; the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirms.
- Esco’s appeal challenges (1) credibility of the recanted testimony, (2) admissibility of exculpatory witnesses, and (3) due-process concerns about the evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recanted testimony entitles new trial? | Esco argues Johnson’s affidavit proves perjury at trial. | State contends recantation is unreliable; no new trial warranted. | No abuse of discretion; no new trial based on recanted testimony. |
| Exculpatory witness testimony newly discovered? | Esco argues Kristi Johnson and Wilson Smith would exonerate him. | Testimony not newly discovered; not probative of recantation. | No error; evidence not newly discovered and lacked probative value. |
| Due-process rights during PCR evidentiary hearing? | Esco asserts interjection impeded cross-examination. | Judge’s interjection was limited to procedure; no impairment of cross-examination. | No due-process violation; plain-error standard not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. State, 214 So.2d 815 (Miss.1968) (recanted testimony cast under suspicion; denial of new trial)
- Garlotte v. State, 915 So.2d 460 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (newly discovered evidence must exist at trial and be nearly conclusive)
- Henderson v. State, 769 So.2d 210 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (trial court credibility findings reserved for fact-finder)
- Howell v. State, 989 So.2d 372 (Miss.2008) (circumstances informing credibility standards under PCR)
- Johnson v. State, 70 So.3d 262 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (recanted testimony review; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Russell v. State, 849 So.2d 95 (Miss.2003) (recanted testimony generally not entitlement to new trial)
- Hardiman v. State, 789 So.2d 814 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (evidentiary hearing required for recanted-testimony PCR)
- Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss.1996) (plain-error review requirements for unsupported issues)
- Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181 (Miss.2001) (plain-error doctrine applicability in PCR)