Stewart v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01847-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01847-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2004 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Pre-trial delay - Suppression of statements - Unsworn jury - Plea bargain - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2001 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: James W. Backstrom Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE District Attorney: Keith Miller Case Number: 98-10,512(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Terry Lamar Stewart |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Pre-trial delay - Suppression of statements - Unsworn jury - Plea bargain - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry Stewart was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Delay Stewart argues that his fundamental due process rights were violated by the three-year delay from the time of his arrest until his trial. Because his claim is not a denial of a speedy trial but a denial of due process, he limits the issue to pre-indictment delay. Stewart complains of the three-year delay after his arrest and indictment but before his trial. Therefore, his claim does not involve a pre-indictment delay. Issue 2: Suppression of statements Stewart argues that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he made to the police following his arrest, because he was denied his right to an initial appearance within forty-eight hours of arrest. The failure to provide an initial appearance for an accused within the time provided is not a reason to suppress a confession where the defendant was informed of his rights and made a knowing and voluntary waiver. Here, Stewart signed two waiver forms stating that he understood his rights and did not wish to assert them. Therefore, the court did not commit reversible error by admitting Stewart’s statements. Issue 3: Unsworn jury Stewart asserts that his conviction should be reversed because he was tried and convicted of capital murder by an unsworn jury. The failure of the court to specifically swear the jury in a capital case is waived where no objection is made by the defendant until the verdict is rendered. Stewart did not object to the issue of the unsworn jury until his trial was completed and a verdict was rendered. In addition, the sentencing order clearly states that the jury was duly sworn. Issue 4: Plea bargain Stewart argues that the court erred by refusing to allow his co-indictee to offer testimony regarding his plea bargain of manslaughter. The admission of a co-conspirator's plea of guilty, while incompetent as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt, may be admissible for other purposes. Stewart wanted to take advantage of his co-indictee’s plea to a lesser charge of manslaughter and use it as substantive evidence that he did not commit capital murder. The use of the plea for this purpose was improper. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Stewart argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support a guilty verdict for capital murder, because there was no evidence that the victim was killed in the commission of a robbery by him. The jury heard testimony that when Dykes and Stewart got into Dykes’ car, Stewart said to Dykes, “I got him good. The blade went all the way through. He’s not so tough now.” Stewart searched through the victim’s wallet looking for money. This is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
