152 So. 3d 1212
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Timothy Sharp was convicted in 2001 of sexual battery and fondling; sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Sharp filed multiple post-conviction motions; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted leave to proceed on a newly discovered-evidence claim based on the victim’s recantation.
- The victim, A.S., gave a September 2012 affidavit recanting her trial testimony, then a December 2012 affidavit recanting the recantation, and testified at an evidentiary PCR hearing with inconsistent statements.
- At trial A.S. had reported penetration with a penis in at least one incident and also described rubbing of the penis on her buttocks; at the PCR hearing she denied penile penetration but admitted possible digital penetration and fondling.
- The circuit judge found the post-trial affidavits and hearing testimony unreliable, credited the original trial evidence (including medical testimony), and denied Sharp’s PCR motion seeking a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the judge’s credibility determinations on the recanted testimony were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s recanted testimony warrants a new trial / relief on PCR | Sharp: A.S.’s September 2012 affidavit (recanting trial testimony) is newly discovered evidence that undermines the convictions and entitles him to relief | State: The recantations and hearing testimony were inconsistent and not credible; trial testimony and supporting medical evidence remain reliable | Court: Denied relief; trial court’s credibility findings rejecting the recantations were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 141 So. 3d 14 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (courts should be skeptical of recanted testimony; recantations warrant an evidentiary hearing for credibility assessment)
- Yarborough v. State, 514 So. 2d 1215 (Miss. 1987) (recanted testimony warrants caution; change in testimony alone is not sufficient for new trial)
- Russell v. State, 849 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 2003) (a witness’s post-trial change in testimony is not alone adequate to grant a new trial)
- Esco v. State, 102 So. 3d 1209 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (trial judge resolves credibility in PCR hearings involving recantations)
- Turner v. State, 771 So. 2d 973 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (trial judge must determine whether witness lied at trial or at PCR)
- Howell v. State, 989 So. 2d 372 (Miss. 2008) (court may deny a new trial if not satisfied that recantation is true)
- Peeples v. State, 218 So. 2d 436 (Miss. 1969) (appellate courts should not disturb trial judge’s credibility determinations absent clear error)
- Sharp v. State, 862 So. 2d 576 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (direct appeal affirming convictions)