Smith v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00523-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-22-2003
Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Comment on right to remain silent - Documentary evidence - M.R.E. 616 - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., 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: 11-01-2001
Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY. SENTENCE OF 43 YEARS
District Attorney: Rick Mitchell
Case Number: 2001-005

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Eural M. Smith




WALTER E. WOOD



 

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: Armed robbery - Comment on right to remain silent - Documentary evidence - M.R.E. 616 - Weight of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Eural Smith was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to forty-three years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Comment on right to remain silent Smith argues that the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial when the prosecution made an impermissible comment upon the defendant's right not to make a statement. Although commenting upon a defendant's silence violates the prohibition against compelled incrimination, but it may be harmless error in a particular case. Because the comment that Smith declined to give a statement upon arrest did not contribute in any way to his conviction since the facts of the crime were largely beyond dispute, the statement was harmless. Issue 2: Documentary evidence Smith argues that the court erred in failing to admit documentary evidence of a murder indictment against one of the witnesses in an unrelated case, because he was prejudiced by the exclusion of the indictment as it tended to show the witness lacked credibility and that he had a motive to lie. M.R.E. 616 allows admission of evidence which tends to show such bias. In addition, the exclusion of the document could not have prejudiced Smith since the jury certainly understood without having a copy of the indictment that the dismissal of the murder charge against the witness was contingent upon the district attorney's satisfaction with his testimony against Smith. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Smith argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because there was no evidence to connect him with the crime and no witness could positively identify him. Taking as true the testimony presented, Smith was a principal in both the planning and execution of this robbery. In addition, the weight to be given the testimony of two co-indictees is one of credibility for the jury.


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