Powell, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01071-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01071-SCT ; 2002-KA-01071-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-20-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Robbery by use of a deadly weapon - Jury instruction - Identification - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prior inconsistent statement - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-30-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: POWELL: ROBBERY BY USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON, 25 YEARS; MCAFFEE: ROBBERY BY USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON, 15 YEARS District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 551-01 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Broderick Barshawn Powell and Markieves Raymond McAffee a/k/a Markives Raymond McAfee |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| 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: | Robbery by use of a deadly weapon - Jury instruction - Identification - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Prior inconsistent statement - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Broderick Powell and Markieves McAffee were convicted of robbery by use of a deadly weapon. They were sentenced to serve twenty five years. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Powell and McAffee argue that the judge erred when he granted an instruction stating that the jury could find McAffee guilty if it found he acted alone or with another when he robbed Ryan's. Not only did they fail to object to the instruction at trial, but the instructions correctly told the jury what it must find when it evaluated the evidence before it. Issue 2: Identification Powell and McAffee argue that the judge erred when one of the victims was allowed to identify Powell during the trial. Not only did they fail to object on the ground they now argue, but the victim simply observed that Powell's build was similar to the taller man which did not rise to the level of an identification. Issue 3: Other bad acts Powell and McAffee argue that the court erred in admitting evidence that McAffee planned to rob a Popeye's Restaurant. M.R.E. 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith but may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent. Here, the judge properly followed the required procedure and instructed the jury not to consider the testimony as a substitute for proof that McAffee committed the Ryan's robbery. Issue 4: Prior inconsistent statement Powell and McAffee argue that they were denied a fair trial because a detective was allowed to testify about a witness's inconsistent statements. Where opposing counsel opens the door, the prosecution may enter and develop a matter in great detail. Here, defense counsel questioned the detective about the content of the witness's statements. Therefore, Powell and McAffee cannot now complain that they did not receive a fair trial because the prosecution was also allowed to question the detective about the content of the statement. Issue 5: Weight of evidence Powell and McAffee argue that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The identification of one of the robbers by one of the victims, the statements made by Powell and McAffee to others, and their behavior after the robbery are sufficient to sustain a finding by a reasonable minded jury that Powell and McAffee committed armed robbery. Issue 6: Ineffective assistance of counsel Powell and McAffee argue that they were denied effective assistance of counsel. They argue that their attorney did not properly object to in court identifications. However, their counsel placed evidence before the jury that both witnesses had failed to identify Powell. They also argue that their attorney should have objected to the admittance of testimony concerning the botched Popeye’s robbery. However, their counsel did object to this testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
