Boggans v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01331-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-09-2004
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Suppression of confession - Jury oath - Section 13-5-71 - Section 13-5-73 - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-28-2002
Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: COUNT I - ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED TO 30 YEARS WITH THE LAST 5 YEARS STAYED AND SUSPENDED COUNT II - ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED TO 30 YEARS WITH THE LAST 5 YEARS STAYED AND SUSPENDED COUNT IV - ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED TO 30 YEARS WITH THE LAST 5 YEARS STAYED AND SUSPENDED THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN COUNT II AND COUNT IV SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT I.
District Attorney: Rick Mitchell
Case Number: 2000-231

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Keith Boggans




WALTER E. WOOD



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE  

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: Armed robbery - Suppression of confession - Jury oath - Section 13-5-71 - Section 13-5-73 - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Keith Boggans was convicted on three counts of armed robbery. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Suppression of confession Boggans argues that his statement was involuntary as having been obtained through coercive techniques that included promises of leniency if he would confess. A promise of lenient treatment in exchange for making an incriminating statement to investigating officers renders the statement inadmissible. However, the mere offer to report to prosecuting authorities the fact that the defendant agreed to make a statement, standing alone, does not rise to the level of constitutionally-prohibited coercion. Here, the officer who took the statement testified that he had informed Boggans that if he chose to give a voluntary statement that fact would be reported to the District Attorney’s office but denied having promised any form of leniency in exchange for the statement or having threatened Boggans with harsher treatment if he declined to give a statement. Therefore, the court did not err in finding that Boggans’ statement was freely and voluntarily offered. Issue 2: Jury oath Boggans argues that the failure of the jury to take the appropriate oath is reversible error. The jurors were administered the general oath found in section 13-5-71 rather than the special oath in capital cases found in section 13-5-73. Under the facts of this case, there is no error. The court offered to the defense that it would properly swear the jury and require the prosecution to re-examine the first witness, but defense counsel neither accepted nor rejected this proposed solution. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Boggans argues that the evidence is insufficient because of his own testimony that he thought the two robbers had only gone into the restaurant to use the restroom. The evidence shows that Boggans was arrested driving the get-away vehicle only moments after an armed robbery occurred. The actual robbers were in the back seat, a pistol was discovered in the vehicle, and the money taken in the robbery was recovered from the car. This evidence was sufficient to directly implicate Boggans as a willing participant in the robbery.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court