96 So. 3d 17
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Foxworth was convicted of capital murder in Harrison County and sentenced to life without parole.
- Co-defendant Fairley pleaded guilty to armed robbery and testified at Foxworth's trial.
- During opening, the State stated Fairley pled to an armed robbery charge; defense moved for mistrial.
- Trial court denied mistrial but restricted questioning about the plea on direct examination; later motions to continue were denied.
- The court affirmed Foxworth’s conviction and sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opening remarks about a co-defendant’s plea require reversal | Foxworth asserts prejudice from the co-defendant’s plea mention. | Foxworth argues the State violated fairness by prejudicially mentioning the plea. | No reversible error; statements were premature and curable with instructions. |
| Whether denial of continuance warrants reversal | Foxworth needed more time due to newly received discovery. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no manifest injustice shown. | No reversible error; continuance denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. State, 223 So.2d 524 (Miss. 1969) (co-defendant's guilty plea generally inadmissible as evidence against defendant)
- Clemons v. State, 732 So.2d 883 (Miss. 1999) (co-indictee testimony regarding prior guilty plea reviewed for prejudice)
- White v. State, 616 So.2d 304 (Miss. 1993) (pretrial remarks about co-conspirators' pleas analyzed for error and credibility impact)
- Johns v. State, 592 So.2d 86 (Miss. 1991) (reversible error when co-indictee testified about prior conviction; distinction from plea)
- United States v. Setser, 568 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2009) (preemptive plea use to blunt impeachment permissible with limits)
- United States v. Veltre, 591 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1979) (opening statement mentioning co-conspirator plea discussed as permissible strategy)
- United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2002) (plea disclosure serves impeachment and credibility signaling purposes)
- United States v. Marroquin, 885 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1989) (need for limiting instruction when admitting accomplice plea)
- United States v. Magee, 821 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1987) (opening statement may outline evidence including accomplice plea)