Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01497-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-18-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Right to speedy trial - Out of court statement Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., 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: 09-08-2001 Appealed from: Leake Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 10 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC. District Attorney: Ken Turner Case Number: 01-CR-036-LE |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dennie Moore |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| 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: | Manslaughter - Right to speedy trial - Out of court statement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennie Moore was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Moore argues that the delay between the time of his arrest and trial constituted a denial of his constitutionally-protected right to a speedy trial. Factors which must be considered in a speedy trial claim include the length of the delay, reason for the delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and any resulting prejudice. The period is commenced on the date of arrest. Moore was arrested in March of 1997, and was not brought to trial until September of 2001. This four and one-half year delay is presumptively prejudicial. The only period of delay that can fairly be attributed to an intentional act by Moore is the brief period from the indictment until trial began. The remainder of the delay is due to the fact that the State did not produce for the various grand juries convened in the interim evidence satisfactory to convince those bodies that a trial was warranted. The inability to procure evidence vital to a proper completion of a criminal prosecution, so long as that evidence is pursued with some reasonable measure of diligence, does not tend to establish bad faith delay tactics. Moore did not assert his right to a speedy trial in the form of a demand. Moore seems to rely only on the presumption of prejudice arising from the long delay. Incarceration alone does not demonstrate the kind of prejudice that merits relief. Assessing these considerations in combination, Moore has failed to demonstrate that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Issue 2: Out of court statement Moore argues that evidence of a statement he made shortly after arrest should have been excluded because he was intoxicated at the time. The admissibility of such a statement is governed by M.R.E. 801(d)(2) since Moore’s statements were spontaneous and not the product of police questioning. Therefore, the fact of his alleged intoxication bears only on the probative value of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
