Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01713-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary & Armed robbery - Admission of statement - Section 43-21-151(1)(a) - Trial in absentia - Golden Rule argument Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-07-2001 Appealed from: Jasper County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: BURGLARY, COUNT I: SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY. ARMED ROBBERY, COUNT II: SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY. FIRST TEN YEARS OF SENTENCE TO BE SERVED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE. SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen Case Number: 10-67 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Antonio Demarcus Brown |
THOMAS QUITMAN BRAME |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Burglary & Armed robbery - Admission of statement - Section 43-21-151(1)(a) - Trial in absentia - Golden Rule argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antonio Brown was convicted of burglary and armed robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of statement Brown argues that his statement to police and the signed waiver of his constitutional rights should have been suppressed because both were involuntarily given since the police believed him to be 17 years old. Where original jurisdiction lies with the circuit court, parental presence is not a pre-requisite to admissibility of a minor's confession. Under section 43-21-151(1)(a), the Youth Court does not have original jurisdiction concerning any act committed by a child which carries the possible criminal penalty of life imprisonment as does armed robbery. Brown also argues that he was incompetent to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights, based upon limited intellect, education and intimations of intoxication. The court must consider the defendant's experience and familiarity with the criminal justice system, intellectual capacity, educational background, degree of literacy, emotional state and any mental disease or other defect. Brown presented no evidence to support his theory. In addition, if a defendant is acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs, admissibility depends upon the degree of intoxication. The record shows that the arresting officer stated that Brown had not been under the influence of any intoxicants when he appeared at the police station. Issue 2: Trial in absentia Brown argues that a continuance should have been ordered after he failed to return after the lunch recess on the first day of trial. A defendant waives his presence at trial if, after being present at the commencement of proceedings, he thereafter voluntarily absents himself. Brown does not contest that he was present at the commencement of trial. Issue 3: Golden Rule argument Brown argues that the prosecution’s comment to the effect that the jury should put themselves in the place of the victim constitutes a violation of the prohibition against "Golden Rule" arguments. Although "Golden Rule" arguments are prohibited because they encourage jurors to act out of self-interest rather than a neutral review of the evidence presented at trial, a prosecutor may comment on the weight and worth of evidence. Here, the prosecution was exhorting the jurors to believe the victim even though there were gaps in her story because of the nature of her injuries. This was proper commentary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
