Rash v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01318-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Prejudicial testimony - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-2001 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED OR SUSPENDED NOR SHALL THE DEFENDANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION. SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY AND ALL SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2001-0056 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Floyd D. Rash |
ALLAN D. SHACKELFORD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Prejudicial testimony - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Floyd Rash was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Rash argues that the court erred by allowing an opinion by a police officer who was not qualified to give expert testimony as to why yellow markings which were on the bills at the time of the arrest were no longer present on the bills at trial. The officer testified that the disappearance of the yellow marks meant that the currency was not destroyed but the bill goes back to its regular state without being damaged. Because this testimony requires specialized knowledge which required a M.R.E. 702 expert opinion, the testimony was improper hearsay evidence. However, its admission was harmless error since there was sufficient evidence of Rash's theft of the money. Issue 2: Prejudicial testimony Rash argues that the court erred by allowing an officer to call the store clerk a victim, because this characterization is prejudicial. Prior to receipt of this testimony, the court had heard the testimony of the clerk that she was robbed by Rash. Since this testimony was already placed in the record, there was no objectionable hearsay. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Rash argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the clerk told the individual "to come in and get the money" and her identification testimony is inconsistent. The jury resolves all conflicts in evidence presented at trial. The clerk testified that although she did not know him by name, she recognized Rash as one of her regular customers and that she was in fear at the time of the robbery and she told him to "come in and get the money" so that his image would be captured on the surveillance camera. Therefore, the verdict is consistent with the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
