Gales v. State
| Docket Number: | 2013-KA-00435-SCT Linked Case(s): 2013-KA-00435-SCT ; 2013-KA-00435-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2014 Opinion Author: Coleman, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Motion to suppress - Investigatory stop - Search of suspect - Probable cause for arrest - Suppression of statements - Narration of video - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J., With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : King, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-26-2013 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: RICHARD A. SMITH Disposition: Convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to sommit armed robbery with sentences of life imprisonment and five years, respectively District Attorney: Willie DeWayne Richardson Case Number: 2012-0085-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brandon Q. Gales a/k/a Brandon Gales |
PHILLIP BROADHEAD, OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER: GEORGE T. HOLMES, STAN PERKINS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND, JOHN R. HENRY, JR. |
|
|
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 & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Motion to suppress - Investigatory stop - Search of suspect - Probable cause for arrest - Suppression of statements - Narration of video - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brandon Gales was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery with sentences of life imprisonment and five years, respectively. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Gales argues that the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop Gales, as the officer was responding to the initial, inaccurate description, which described a black male wearing a blue shirt, black pants, and a white hoodie. However, in his motion to suppress, he Gales conceded that “the Greenville Police Department had the right to stop and question the defendant, and even the right to conduct a pat-down for weapons.” Police officers may detain a person for a brief, investigatory stop when the officers have reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts that allow the officers to conclude the suspect is wanted in connection with criminal behavior. In this case, the court did not err in finding that the officer had formed a reasonable suspicion in his detention of Gales. Gales was in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene soon after the robbery, partially matched the description of one of the robbers, and appeared nervous. Gales also argues that the officer exceeded the scope of Terry by ordering Gales to take money out of his pocket, knowing that it was not a weapon. A search should be restricted to discovering items that threaten the safety of the officer. Here, the officer had reason to believe that Gales might have been armed, necessitating a frisk of his person. When he felt an unknown bulge in Gales’s pocket, he was concerned for his safety. Gales voluntarily emptied his pockets, showed the money to the officer, and claimed that he had won it gambling. Based on these facts, there is no error. However, the officers’ continued detainment of Gales and conduct in taking Gales’s money are not congruent with Terry. Gales was in custody, having been handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser. The officers had ample time to attain a search warrant. The officer’s subsequent searches of Gales prior to his being placed under arrest may have exceeded the scope of Terry. Issue 2: Arrest Probable cause to arrest a suspect exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge or of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in belief that a crime has been committed and that a particular individual has committed it. After Gales voluntarily showed the officer wads of money, which he claimed he had won gambling, the officer asked dispatch to repeat the description of the suspect. Dispatch then had a more accurate description of the suspect, describing an individual with a black hoodie, light blue jeans, and brown casual shoes. Gales matched the description, other than the black hoodie. Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was more than enough information for a reasonable person to ascertain a fair probability that Gales had just committed the crime in question. Despite not having a warrant, the officer’s search of Gales’s money did not violate the Fourth Amendment. When Gales voluntarily took out his money and showed it to the officer, Gales extinguished his reasonable expectation of privacy as to the money, just as when illegal contraband is in plain view of a police officer. Thus, the arrest and search were proper. Issue 3: Suppression of statements Gales argues that he was not timely Mirandized when he was arrested. However, it is not even clear that there was a Miranda violation, and the record does not demonstrate any potential prejudice, because the record does not state what, if anything, Gales said during the period in question. Nothing in the record suggests Gales said anything after being arrested, much less that he was interrogated, which is required for Miranda to apply. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress Gales’s statements prior to his being Mirandized. Issue 4: Narration of video Gales argues that the officer’s narration of the surveillance video prior to its being shown to the jury was plain error and violated the best evidence rule. The trial court did not err in overruling defense counsel’s objection, which was based solely on the best evidence rule. The best evidence rule applies to documentary evidence and is concerned with the authenticity of such evidence. In addition, while the trial court’s admission of the officer’s narration may have been improper, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice necessary to constitute a plain error. The majority of the narration consisted of descriptions of events that can be seen clearly in the video. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Gales argues that no rational trier of fact could have found Gales was one of the robbers. The verdict was both legally sufficient and not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The majority of Gales’s arguments are factual in nature. The weight and credibility to be given to a witness’s testimony are within the sole province of the jury as fact finder. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
