Opinion ID: 1829489
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony Concerning Accomplice's Conviction

Text: During the direct examination of Terrilyn Smith, the State elicited the fact that she had been previously convicted of a felony for the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine. On re-direct, she testified that she had not cut any deal with the state for her testimony at her trial; that she had gotten a ten year sentence; and that the only deal was that if she did not appeal her conviction, the state would not prosecute the second case against her. Also, during the direct testimony of the agent, while he was testifying concerning the chain of custody for the cocaine, he was asked by the State: Q. And, of course, Terrilyn Smith hadn't been charged with that; has she? A. With what? Q. With this charge that this defendant's being tried on today? A. Yes, sir, she's already been tried and convicted on that charge. Q. On this charge? A. Yes, sir. Q. The 22nd? A. Yes[,] sir. [Emphasis supplied]. The appellant alleges this prejudiced the jury, and also complains that the state bolstered her testimony through the testimony of the agent. Trial counsel for the defense did not object at any time during any of this examination. It has been the long standing rule that a contemporaneous objection is necessary in order to preserve an error for appeal. Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 30 (Miss. 1990); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 682 (Miss. 1990); Singleton v. State, 518 So.2d 653, 655 (Miss. 1988) (and cases cited therein). But cf. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 551-54 (Miss. 1990) (Contemporaneous objection is not needed where defendant has been denied a fundamentally fair trial.) [2] No such objection was made in the case at hand; therefore, absent the denial of a fundamentally fair trial, any error is waived. The law is well settled that, where two or more persons are jointly indicted for the same offense but are separately tried, a judgment of conviction against one of them is not competent evidence on the trial of the other because such plea of guilty or conviction is no evidence of the guilt of the party being tried. State v. Thornhill, 251 Miss. 718, 171 So.2d 308 (1965); Pieper v. State, 242 Miss. 49, 134 So.2d 157 (1961); Pickens v. State, 129 Miss. 191, 91 So. 906 (1922). Buckley v. State, 223 So.2d 524, 528 (Miss. 1969). Relying upon this rule in Henderson v. State, 403 So.2d 139, 141 (Miss. 1981) this Court reasoned: In Griffin v. State, 293 So.2d 810 (Miss. 1974), this Court said: The only other error assigned ... is that the state was allowed to bring out on cross-examination of James Griffin, a co-indictee, that he had been tried and convicted the preceding week and found guilty of the same murder. While this evidence was brought out by the state under the guise of showing the previous conviction of James Griffin, it was done in such a manner that the jury could not help knowing that James Griffin had been tried for the same offense the preceding week and found guilty. It was proper for the state to show that the witness James Griffin had been convicted of murder even though this conviction was on appeal... . However, it was not proper to do so in such a manner as to inform the jury that James Griffin, a co-indictee had been tried and convicted of the same offense. ... (293 So.2d at 812). [Emphasis added] [citations omitted]. The jury was made aware earlier in the trial that Michael Henderson was involved in the crime. But, it was only when the State's attorney asked Michael: And the jury convicted you, didn't they?, and Michael answered: Yea, because of you ... I already had my trial, that the jury became aware that he had been convicted of the same crime for which the appellant was being tried. Under the circumstances, once the jury was apprised of the fact that Michael Henderson had previously been charged and convicted for his participation in the offense for which the appellant was being tried, the jury's verdict of guilty was such a certainty as to deny the appellant a fair trial. [Emphasis added]. The law is analogous with respect to a co-indictee as well as an accomplice in this respect. In the case sub judice, the jury became aware through the testimony of Smith and the agent that she had been tried and convicted of a felony. It was apparent from the testimony that the offense for which she was convicted occurred the same day as the offense for which Johns was on trial. Owens' testimony further revealed that the same packet of cocaine had been used as evidence in Smith's trial. Although no contemporaneous objection was made, in these circumstances, as in Henderson and Griffin v. State, 293 So.2d 810 (Miss. 1974), the testimony was error, and the defendant was, as a result, denied a fair trial. Therefore, the error can be addressed on appeal absent a contemporaneous objection. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 551-54 (Miss. 1990). As in Griffin v. State, 293 So.2d 810 (Miss. 1974), it was proper to bring out that Smith had been convicted of a felony. It was, however, improper to inform the jury she had been convicted of the same offense for which Johns was being tried. Under Henderson v. State and Griffin v. State, 293 So.2d 810 (Miss. 1974), the admission of the testimony regarding Smith's conviction denied Johns a fair trial and is reversible error. Although this error was not objected to below, it is assigned on this appeal by Johns' subsequent counsel as a part of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Therefore, it is proper for the Court's review.