Crosby v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00422-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00422-COA ; 2002-CT-00422-SCT ; 2002-CT-00422-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-06-2003
Opinion Author: Bridges, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault, Kidnapping & Felon in possession of firearm - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of indictment - Expert witness - Discovery violation - Leading questions - M.R.E. 611(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-08-2002
Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court
Judge: William E. Chapman, III
Disposition: APPELLANT FOUND GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, KIDNAPING, AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON ALL AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER; SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ON EACH OF THE THREE COUNTS, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.
District Attorney: Rick Mitchell
Case Number: 13290

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Steven Lamont Crosby a/k/a Steve Salter




DAN W. DUGGAN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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: Aggravated assault, Kidnapping & Felon in possession of firearm - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of indictment - Expert witness - Discovery violation - Leading questions - M.R.E. 611(c)

Summary of the Facts: Steven Crosby was convicted of aggravated assault, kidnaping and convicted felon in possession of a firearm, all as a habitual offender. He was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Crosby argues that the evidence was insufficient, because there was insufficient evidence of a gun being used in the aggravated assault, there was insufficient evidence for the kidnaping, and there was no connection made between him and the gun. The record shows an abundance of evidence to support the jury finding Crosby guilty of aggravated assault. There was expert testimony that the injuries to the victim were consistent with the history received, that he had been assaulted with a gun. Also, there was testimony that blood was found on the end of the magazine found underneath the seat where Crosby was seated. With regard to the kidnapping charge, the evidence is clear that Crosby thrashed the victim, put him in his car and dumped him in a ditch. With regard to the possession charge, Crosby had been convicted of at least two other felonies which were charged separately and arose out of separate incidents. The gun was found in the trunk of a car in which Crosby was riding as a passenger, and the owner of the car told police that the gun did not belong to her. A clip or magazine for the laser sighted weapon was found underneath the seat where Crosby was seated. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Crosby argues that the court erred in allowing the indictment to be amended to charge habitual offender status. An indictment can be amended when the amendment goes to form and not to substance. Because Crosby would have the same defenses available to him whether he was a repeat offender or not, the amendment goes to form rather than substance. Issue 3: Expert witness Crosby argues that the court erred in allowing a sheriff’s investigator to testify as a firearms expert. The question as to whether a person is qualified to testify as an expert is left to the court’s discretion. The investigator was qualified as an expert for the limited purpose of answering questions concerning the clip found under the seat matching the gun found in the trunk. Considering the limited scope of the questioning, the court did not abuse its discretion. Issue 4: Discovery violation Crosby argues that a discovery violation requires reversal, i.e., a witness mentioned finding blood on the weapon but defense counsel had no reports in his discovery that included whether or not blood was found on the weapon or that the weapon tested positive for blood. This evidence had been in the custody of the Rankin County Sheriff since the crime occurred and was readily available to Crosby and his counsel. In addition, this witness was also made available to defense counsel. Issue 5: Leading questions Crosby argues that the court erred in allowing the State to ask leading questions. M.R.E. 611 (c) allows leading questions on direct examination when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. While the court did allow limited leading questions, it was only for the purpose of developing his testimony as is permitted in M.R.E. 611(c).


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