King v. State
2012 Miss. LEXIS 108
| Miss. | 2012Background
- King and Stanton were charged with two counts of capital murder; King was retried after a mistrial on remand for the Leadway Grocery deaths; King was convicted on both counts and sentenced to life in MDOC concurrently; evidence included a palm print matching King and Stanton’s statements about the robbery; Stanton testified against King in exchange for the death-penalty concession; Exhibit 3e (Quong’s face shot) was admitted over objection; King timely appealed the evidentiary ruling and the weight of the evidence; the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibit 3e | King contends Exhibit 3e is unnecessarily gruesome and prejudicial. | State contends there is probative value and not unduly prejudicial. | Exhibit 3e properly admitted; some probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Weight of the evidence supportingKing's conviction | Stanton's testimony was uncorroborated and not fully reliable. | Palm print corroborates Stanton; accomplice testimony can sustain a verdict when reasonable. | Verdict not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; denial of a new trial was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamberlin v. State, 989 So.2d 320 (Miss.2008) (admission of gruesome photographs reviewed for abuse of discretion; some probative value required)
- Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 1088 (Miss.1998) (photographs admissible if probative and not unduly prejudicial)
- McIntosh v. State, 917 So.2d 78 (Miss.2005) (probative value of photographs supports admission)
- Dampier v. State, 973 So.2d 221 (Miss.2008) (photographs may be admitted with probative value)
- Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67 (Miss.1990) (photographs may be admitted where probative and not overly inflammatory)
- Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680 (Miss.1990) (autopsy photos; handling of prejudice)
- Williams v. State, 32 So.3d 486 (Miss.2010) (accomplice testimony may be given weight with corroboration)
- Catchings v. State, 394 So.2d 869 (Miss.1981) (un corroborated accomplice testimony may sustain a conviction with caution)
- Massey v. State, 992 So.2d 1161 (Miss.2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial motions)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005) (thirteenth-juror standard; weigh evidence in new-trial context)