All Languages. More filters. Sort order. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. About Dedrick Weathersby. Dedrick Weathersby. Mama Mattie Cuba where she taught him the fundamentals of theater and he stared and was the lead in all of her plays which he wa Dedrick Weathersby a native from East Texas born to Carolyn Nelson and Alvin Weathersby later raised by Bobby Nelson, with a dream of becoming a famous actor and Playwright, Director. Mama Mattie Cuba where she taught him the fundamentals of theater and he stared and was the lead in all of her plays which he was named best actor in each of the productions.
His leading roles in the productions broke barriers for more African American students to participate in Theater at Longview High School. Performed in front of a "Sold out" audience at the "Longview Community Theater" for one night August 22, , the Owner of the Community Theater stated in a news interview that "By far the most successful play at the Community Theater in " "He gives all his praises and credit to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Books by Dedrick Weathersby. Trivia About Dedrick Weathersb No trivia or quizzes yet.
Add to Wishlist. Ships in 7 to 10 business days. Link Either by signing into your account or linking your membership details before your order is placed. Description Product Details Click on the cover image above to read some pages of this book! In Stock.
The Fire Maker. The Great Animal Escapade.
Dedrick Weathersby's the Spelling Be-E
The Life Of P. While working in your capacity as a lieutenant at the Leake County Correctional Facility, has the Defendant, Henry Payton, and also another inmate by the name of Eric Freeman been incarcerated there? And, I will ask whether or not at some point in time, somewhere around a month or so prior to this, they were both in lock-down? Now, while they were in lock-down, were they ever allowed by you to go out in the recreational area together?
During Payton's cross-examination of Freeman, Payton's counsel repeatedly stated that the conversation with Payton occurred sometime in the previous three weeks. Payton argues that Freeman confirmed this time frame. However, after reviewing Freeman's testimony, we do not come to the same conclusion.
Freeman's testimony was that the conversation occurred within the last month. Ragsdale testified that at one point Freeman and Payton were allowed to go into the yard together. It was Payton's counsel, not Freeman, who asserted that the conversation occurred within the last three weeks. That being the case, the credibility of Freeman's and Lt. Ragsdale's testimony were matters properly before the jury and deserving of the weight apparently assigned to them. Payton argues that Freeman's testimony required corroboration. Apparently, Payton confuses the corroboration required for questionable co-conspirator testimony with that of a disinterested witness.
See Flanagan v.
League of Cincinnati Theatres › Strengthening, nurturing, and promoting Cincinnati Theater
The only requirements for the admissibility of a disinterested witness' testimony is that the witness be competent and speak from personal knowledge, and that the testimony be relevant. See M. Freeman's testimony established that he spoke from personal knowledge. Beyond unsupported inferences that Freeman was being coerced to testify, an allegation that was denied by Freeman, Payton has presented no evidence establishing that Freeman's testimony was so incredible as to require corroboration or to warrant suppression.
Corey Young testified that he was present when Payton, Marshall, Belmer, and Graves planned the robbery. According to Young, Payton led the discussion. Young testified that Payton claimed to have an inside source at the bank who provided him with information. Payton asked him to be their driver on the day of the robbery. Young told Payton that he would get back to him, but he never did. On cross-examination, Payton brought out that Young was a friend of Dedrick Marshall, one of Payton's co-defendants, and that he testified on Marshall's behalf in his trial.
Payton also insinuated that Young might have stolen Payton's car and been the unidentified fourth robber in the BMW. He offered no corroboration of this allegation.
Download e-book Dedrick Weathersbys The Spelling BE-E
Other than these attempts at demonstrating bias and interest, Payton did nothing at trial or in brief to this Court to discredit Young's testimony,. On cross-examination, Payton's counsel pointed out that Hill did not know to what occasion this message referred. Payton's first name is Henry. However, on re-direct, Ware testified that he was on the other end of the bank from Britt, and that he could not hear everything the robbers said because they were moving around the bank and because he was nervous.
Jeannie Seamer, a citizen nearby, testified that she saw four black males in a silver-gray BMW park in front of the bank. Later, she saw three of them at the bank door and one remaining in the driver's seat of the BMW. She noticed that the three men at the bank door had ski masks on their heads and guns in their hands.
She then went to the police station and told them that the bank was being robbed.
Seamer testified that when the police sirens started going off, the man in the BMW drove away by himself. The bank's vice-president, Carl Ware, testified that he also saw a gray BMW outside the bank prior to the robbery. Testimony at trial established that Payton had access to, and occasionally drove, a gray BMW matching the description given by Seamer and Ware.
Although the car was registered to someone else, Payton had previously filed a claim with his insurance company when the car had been in an accident.
About the Book :
He listed himself as the owner. The BMW was destroyed by an intentional fire soon after the bank robbery. Seamer testified that she recognized Payton as the driver of the robber's car when she saw him at the first trial, but his looks had changed since then to the extent that she could not identify him at the second trial.
- Hans Huckebein (Historischen Kontext) (Active Index) (German Edition).
- Dedrick Weathersby's The Spelling BE-E by Dedrick Dwanu' Weathersby, Paperback | Barnes & Noble®.
- State Taxation of Internet Transactions.
- Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky - Indices - Volume I - Old Testament - Specific Chapters and Verses (Commentaries on the Teaching ... Ouspensky - Indices - Volumes I-V Book 1).
- Similar authors to follow.
- Top Authors.
Seamer testified that no one asked her to identify Payton at the first trial. She said that had she been asked to identify him at that time, she would have been able to. She testified that if Payton was the same man that was at the first trial, then he was the man she saw in the BMW. On cross-examination, referring to Payton's first trial, Payton questioned Seamer as follows:.
Redd Pest Control Co. The jury is charged with listening to and reviewing conflicting testimony and witness credibility, and deciding whom to believe. Wetz v. Seamer's testimony, was not so incredible as to be unworthy of submission to the jury or of acceptance by them.
Other testimony confirmed her description of the BMW and everything else she testified to, save her testimony that she could have identified Payton at the first trial. See Brown v. On the issue of legal sufficiency, this Court held in Pinkney v. The testimony of Payton's three co-defendants was reasonable and not substantially impeached. It was corroborated by numerous other witnesses who testified to Payton's involvement in these crimes, and he was linked to the crimes through credible evidence.
Although Payton's counsel did his best to discredit and confuse these witnesses, their testimony was not so incredible or unreliable that a reasonable and fair-minded jury could not have believed it. Given the deference that must be afforded to the jury's verdict when it finds support in the evidence, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to set aside the verdict for lack of evidence. Lastly, Payton argues that the trial judge erred by failing to grant a continuance after Freeman's testimony.
Payton claims this testimony was crucial because it was the State's only corroborating evidence supporting the testimony of his co-defendants. The prosecutor claimed he disclosed that Freeman would testify Thursday, August 30, , the same day he learned of Freeman. Payton claims he was not advised of Freeman until Friday, August 31, Payton attempted to speak with Freeman that day, but Freeman refused.
The trial began on Tuesday, September 4, Prior to Freeman's testimony on the second day of trial, Wednesday, September 5, , the judge gave Payton an opportunity to confer with Freeman. Freeman again refused to talk to Payton in private, telling him that he could ask him questions from the stand. Payton did so. Payton requested a continuance to investigate Freeman's allegations. The trial judge granted a fifteen-minute recess in order to allow Payton's attorney to confer with the State's investigator who interviewed Freeman. Afterwards, Payton requested and was supplied the investigator's notes from his meeting with Freeman.
The record is silent as to whether Payton again requested a continuance after conferring with the investigator and reviewing his notes. These notes were used by Payton in cross-examination of Freeman. Payton asserts that the failure to grant a continuance was a violation of Box v. He argues that a continuance was necessary because he needed to check the veracity of Freeman's testimony and prepare rebuttal testimony. URCCC 9. Although the State produced Freeman's name prior to trial, it failed to produce the substance of his statement.
Thus, the State committed a discovery violation. In Box, and its progeny, this Court set out the procedure for trial courts to follow when a discovery violation has occurred. If during the course of trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed to the defense as required by these rules, and the defense objects to the introduction for that reason, the court shall act as follows:. If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial.
The court shall not be required to grant either a continuance or mistrial for such a discovery violation if the prosecution withdraws its efforts to introduce such evidence. In ruling on Payton's directed verdict motion, the trial judge discussed the State's alleged discovery violation. He concluded that because Payton had known since Friday, August 31, , that Freeman was refusing to talk to him, he should have brought it to the court's attention before Freeman was called to testify on Wednesday, September 5, The judge further reasoned that the motion should be denied because, if Freeman was telling the truth, Payton surely knew what the substance of his testimony would be and should have anticipated it.
The trial court has considerable discretion in matters pertaining to discovery, and its exercise of discretion will not be set aside in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.