James David Fortenberry v. State of Mississippi
191 So. 3d 1245
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- James David Fortenberry was convicted in Rankin County Circuit Court of two counts of sexual battery and one count of forcible rape, with concurrent thirty-year sentences and five years’ supervised probation.
- Fortenberry was severed from co-defendant Holloway; the jury found him guilty as charged after a trial in which Holloway’s separate convictions were also pursued.
- On appeal, Fortenberry challenged ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, jury-instruction errors, denial of a motion for a new trial, and a claimed Brady violation.
- A Brady hearing was held in 2014, after which the circuit court found no Brady violation; the issue was argued on appeal as to suppression of a statement attributed to Chris Moore.
- Key trial facts include two assailants, one identified as Holloway, who conducted most of the sexual acts, with Fortenberry present and later identifying himself at Catherine’s location; DNA evidence linked to Holloway, not Fortenberry.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s rulings, including denial of the amended motion for a new trial and the instructions given to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Record shows no constitutional ineffectiveness | Ineffective assistance warrants relief | Denied without prejudice; may pursue in post-conviction relief |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during opening/closing | Statements about witnesses and DNA were improper and prejudicial | Arguments were proper comment on evidence and credibility | No reversible error; no cumulative prejudice; statements not dispositive |
| Denial of amended motion for a new trial | Evidence was weakness; DNA not Fortenberry's; hearsay issues | Jury credibility for witnesses; evidence supports verdict | Not reversible; weight of evidence supports verdict |
| Jury instructions on aiding/abetting | Needed instruction on intent to aid Holloway | S-4 and S-1 adequately instructed; no need for D-2b | No error; instructions fairly stated law and did not require D-2b |
| Brady violation | State possessed favorable statement from Chris Moore not disclosed | No favorable statement was possessed; could have been obtained | No Brady violation; denial of motion for a new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Slaughter v. State, 815 So. 2d 1122 (Miss. 2002) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct on appeal)
- Dora v. State, 986 So. 2d 917 (Miss. 2008) (prosecutor may comment on weaknesses in a defendant’s case)
- Manning v. State, 158 So. 3d 302 (Miss. 2015) ( Brady considerations and material evidence discussion)
- King v. State, 656 So. 2d 1168 (Miss. 1995) ( Brady test articulations in Mississippi)
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (weight given to credibility and standard for new-trial review)
- Ross v. State, 22 So. 3d 400 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (test for granting post-trial relief on appeal)