Love v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-02068-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder, Aggravated assault & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Duress instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2010 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CAPITAL MURDER, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION; COUNT II, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS; COUNT III, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS; COUNT IV, CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS; WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2010-032-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Barry Love |
ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE B RELAND WOOD |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Capital murder, Aggravated assault & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Duress instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Barry Love was convicted of capital murder, two counts of aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court sentenced Love to life without eligibility for parole or probation for capital murder, twenty years for each count of aggravated assault, and five years for conspiracy. Love appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duress instruction Love argues that he was entitled to a jury instruction on duress. A defendant is entitled to jury instructions that support his theory of the case, even when the evidence supporting his theory is weak, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. Love testified that he was acting under duress while participating in the armed robbery. The only mention of duress occurred during Love’s testimony. Love’s testimony alone was sufficient to support his theory of the case; therefore, he was entitled to a jury instruction on duress. However, duress was adequately addressed in the jury instructions. The State offered and the circuit court granted an instruction stating that Love had to “deliberately associate himself . . . with the crime” and that he had to “voluntarily participate in [the crime’s] commission.” This adequately covered the issue of duress. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Love’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim rests on his trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on duress. Since Love’s theory of the case was presented to the jury through other instructions, Love’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
