Trotter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00501-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-13-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Drive-by shooting - Exclusion of testimony - Sequestration rule - M.R.E. 615 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-13-2002 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Howard Davis, Jr. Disposition: GUILTY OF DRIVE-BY SHOOTING; SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2002-74-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bobby Trotter |
AELICIA L. THOMAS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Drive-by shooting - Exclusion of testimony - Sequestration rule - M.R.E. 615 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Trotter was convicted of committing a drive-by shooting and was sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of testimony Trotter argues that the court erred by not allowing his twin brother to testify. The judge determined that the defense had violated the sequestration rule, which had been invoked before trial began. The defense talked with this potential witness after the rule had been invoked. While M.R.E. 615 gives a court discretion during and before trial to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, attorneys in the case should be permitted to consult at least with their own witnesses even after the rule is invoked. Error occurred here in blocking counsel from talking with a witness whom she planned to call. However, reversal does not result from an erroneous decision to admit or exclude evidence in a criminal case unless the ruling undermined a substantial right of the defendant. Here, the witness allegedly was uncooperative and would not explain what he was going to say. It is difficult to find error in the refusal to permit the calling of a witness when the proponent of that witness has yet to discover the nature of the testimony, even if the trial judge blocked an after-the-fact exploration of the proposed testimony. In addition, the potential testimony of this witness was cumulative. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis to believe that the outcome of the trial would have been any different. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Trotter argues that the guilty verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The evidence in this case shows that there was an initial, confrontational visit to someone's house, with a gun being fired from the back of Trotter's vehicle. Trotter sped away and then quickly came back, with more shots being fired from his vehicle. The permissible inference from this evidence is that at least when Trotter returned to the residence after the initial shooting, he was an intentional aider and abettor to Hampton's firing his weapon from the vehicle. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
