Askew v. State

The defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of his accomplice's recantation of his trial testimony since there was no evidence that the accomplice was convicted of perjury or that his trial testimony was pure fabrication.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jessie James Askew, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery of a Morrison’s cafeteria in Warner Robbins. Askew was also found guilty of three counts of kidnaping and three counts of aggravated assault committed against cafeteria employees during the robbery, along with three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of these crimes. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment entered on the convictions.

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Askew’s conviction on all of the charges. The State presented evidence that two robbers carrying firearms and wearing masks to conceal their identities entered the rear door of the business, forced employees at gunpoint into a walk-in cooler, and took over $4000 from the business. Although the robbers fled the scene before police arrived, a Morrison’s employee knew and recognized Fernando Jackson as one of the robbers despite the mask and identified him to police. Jackson was arrested, admitted his involvement, and testified pursuant to a plea agreement with the State that Askew was the other robber. There was evidence that Askew worked at Morrison’s until shortly before the robbery. DeShaun Maine, another Morrison’s employee, was produced as a witness by the State and was expected to testify that he knew Askew and recognized him as one of the robbers, as he had previously testified for the State before the grand jury. At trial, however, Maine changed his testimony and said he did not recognize Askew as one of the robbers. Evidence of Maine’s grand jury testimony identifying Askew as one of the robbers was introduced for purposes of impeachment.

Askew v. State

The defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of his accomplice's recantation of his trial testimony since there was no evidence that the accomplice was convicted of perjury or that his trial testimony was pure fabrication.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report