Roach v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CT-00162-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00162-COA ; 2011-CA-00162-COA ; 2011-CT-00162-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2013 Opinion Author: Coleman, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence - Juror misconduct - Extraneous information Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, P.J., Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Chandler and King, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 251-10-809 |
|
| Note: | The original COA opinion can be viewed at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO76850.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jimmie Roach a/k/a Jimmie C. Roach a/k/a Jimmy Roach |
JANE E. TUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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: | Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence - Juror misconduct - Extraneous information |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmie Roach was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of hydromorphone. He was sentenced to forty-eight years on the cocaine-possession charge and sixty years on the hydromorphone-possession charge, as both a subsequent drug offender and habitual offender. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reinstated and affirmed the conviction and sentence. Roach filed an application for permission to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court which was granted. After a hearing, the trial judge denied Roach’s motion. Roach appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Roach argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence that a member of the jury was exposed to extraneous information. To warrant relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the petitioner must prove that the evidence will probably produce a different result or induce a different verdict, if a new trial is granted. Here, the evidence is not newly discovered, because it would not have been introduced at trial and does not go to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence against Roach. Post-conviction proceedings are for the purpose of bringing to the trial court’s attention facts not known at the time of judgment. When allegations of juror misconduct or extraneous information arise, the court must first determine whether an investigation is warranted. If the trial court determines there is no threshold showing of external influences, the inquiry stops there. If the trial judge has good cause to believe there was improper influence on the jury, the court should conduct a post-trial hearing. The second step is to determine whether the communication was made and the nature of the communication. If the investigation reveals that the communication was made, the court must determine whether it was reasonably possible that the communication altered the verdict. If a juror approaches an attorney for one of the parties or the court itself, or if either subsequently learns such through alternative means, all parties involved should be made aware of the allegation as expeditiously as possible. Here, Roach’s motion for post-conviction relief was filed nearly six years after his trial. Thus, the State and the circuit court were not made aware of the allegation as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the only evidence supporting Roach’s claim that the juror received extraneous information was from the juror. Thus, the trial judge did not err in concluding that Roach failed to prove that there was good cause to believe the jury had been exposed to extraneous prejudicial information, and there is no need to address whether the verdict was altered or the jury must be reconvened. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
