Ferguson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00120-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-00120-COA ; 2001-CT-00120-SCT ; 2001-CT-00120-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Suppression of photographic line-up - Limiting instruction - Prior felony convictions - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, 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: 01-09-2001 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: JURY VERDICT: GUILTY, COUNT I AND COUNT II COUNT I: ARMED ROBBERY, LIFE SENTENCE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. COUNT II: POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON, LIFE SENTENCE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: CR2000-73 |
|
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Maurice Ferguson a/k/a Edward Hunter a/k/a Michael Ferguson a/k/a Lee Tollfree a/k/a Arthur Ferguson a/k/a Michael Lewis |
CAROL L. WHITE-RICHARD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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 & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Suppression of photographic line-up - Limiting instruction - Prior felony convictions - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Maurice Ferguson was found guilty of armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, as an habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of photographic line-up Ferguson argues that the photographic line-up identification was prejudicial, because the dates on eight of the photographs were from three to nine years previous while the date on his photo was the date of the line-up. Factors the court must consider in determining whether a pre-trial identification was improperly tainted include the opportunity of the witness to view the accused at the time of the crime; the degree of attention exhibited by the witness; the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal; the level of certainty exhibited by the witness at the confrontation; and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. The witness in this case talked with Ferguson for approximately five minutes shortly before the robbery; there was nothing to distract her attention from him; her description to police immediately after the robbery was accurate except as to Ferguson's height and age; she did not express any uncertainty about her identification of Ferguson; and the time between the robbery was short. Given these factors, there was sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the identification. Issue 2: Limiting instruction Ferguson argues that the court erred by failing to issue a limiting instruction, sua sponte, regarding his prior felony convictions being used as proof in the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge and of his status as an habitual offender. When evidence is introduced that the defendant has a prior conviction for the same offense for which he is being tried, both counsel and the court have a duty to minimize the effect through a request for and giving of a curative instruction. Since the evidence was admitted to prove an element of the offense charged, a sua sponte instruction is not necessary unless the totality of the circumstances call for it regarding the admission of past criminal acts in evidence to prove an element of the crime. Here, the judge indicated that the jury should not single out one instruction alone but should consider the instructions as a whole and also instructed the jury on its duty to determine the facts from the evidence produced in open court. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Ferguson argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the State failed to prove the elements for armed robbery. The State presented evidence in accordance with section 97-3-79 which revealed that Ferguson intentionally exhibited a deadly weapon which placed the victim in fear of injury and that Ferguson took funds from the store. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
