Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00610-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00610-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 03-20-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-27-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault, Burglary of dwelling & Rape - Illegal arrest - Arrest warrant - Section 99-3-7(1) and (2) - Voluntariness of consent - Suppression of confession - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2005 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: Appellant was found guilty of Aggravated Assault, Burglary of a Dwelling, and Rape, and was sentenced to serve twenty years on the aggravated assault conviction, ten years on the burglary of a dwelling conviction, and forty years on the rape conviction, with the three sentences to run consecutively. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR03-765 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles Moore, Jr. |
LORI NAIL BASHAM |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault, Burglary of dwelling & Rape - Illegal arrest - Arrest warrant - Section 99-3-7(1) and (2) - Voluntariness of consent - Suppression of confession - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Moore was convicted of aggravated assault, burglary of a dwelling, and rape. He was sentenced to twenty years on the aggravated assault conviction, ten years on the burglary of a dwelling conviction, and forty years on the rape conviction, with the three sentences to run consecutively. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal arrest Moore argues that, at the time of the search, he was in custody following an illegal arrest. As such, he argues, any evidence collected during that search was “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should have been suppressed. The officers, who claim they had a warrant, arrested Moore on a misdemeanor charge of writing a $4.19 bad check to Wal-Mart in 1996. Moore filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in which he requested a copy of the misdemeanor warrant. Because the State could not produce a copy of the misdemeanor warrant upon request, Moore claims that under section 99-3-7(1) and (2), his arrest was illegal. The statute clearly requires a warrant for the misdemeanor arrest. The fact that the warrant could not later be produced is not conclusive proof that no warrant existed, nor does it necessarily mean the officers were not in possession of the warrant when they arrested Moore. The officers testified they had an arrest warrant in their possession at the time of the arrest. Additionally, the Justice Court file included a Justice Affidavit concerning the bad check charge, a copy of the $4.19 check signed by Moore and issued to Wal-Mart, and a computerized arrest form. The arrest form indicated in two places that a warrant had been issued for Moore’s arrest on the bad check charge. This evidence, along with the testimony of the officers, constitutes substantial credible evidence which supports the circuit court’s findings. Issue 2: Voluntariness of consent Moore argues he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his home. Consent is valid only where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right not to be searched. Moore has the burden of proving that some impairment or diminished capacity prevented him from knowingly giving his consent. Moore testified he was unaware that the officers could not search his home without a warrant absent a signed consent form. According to Moore, he did not know he had a right to refuse to sign the consent form when he signed it. Moore’s testimony starkly contrasts the testimony of the officers. Moore was not excited, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, mentally incompetent, or especially impressionable. The circumstances of his consent were not coercive. Moore willingly cooperated with the officers, indicating voluntary consent. Thus, the trial court’s findings were certainly supported by substantial credible evidence. Issue 3: Suppression of confession Moore argues that his statement given while in custody following an illegal arrest must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” However, Moore gave a statement while he was in custody pursuant to a lawful arrest. Moore also argues that his confession should be suppressed because it was not freely and voluntarily given, because he did not understand what he was doing when he signed the Miranda waiver and he was threatened with bodily injury. The prosecution’s burden of proving the confession was voluntary is met and prima facie case made out by testimony of an officer, or other persons having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without threats, coercion, or offer of reward. The State offered evidence from three officers and provided a signed waiver as proof that Moore voluntarily confessed. The trial court had sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the State met its burden of proof. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Moore argues the State failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the aggravated assault charge, because the State never offered into evidence a knife or other deadly weapon to prove that Moore caused bodily injury to the victim with a deadly weapon. The State properly sought to show that Moore harmed the victim with some “other means” - in this case a “Leatherman” type of tool - likely to produce seriously bodily harm. The State was not required to produce the actual tool, and the jury was free to consider its absence when weighing the evidence and making its determination. Given the victim’s testimony about the stabbing, as well as photographs of the victim’s neck wounds, and accepting as true this evidence which supports the verdict, the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Moore also argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the burglary charge, because the State failed to introduce any physical evidence that Moore broke into the house. However, Moore’s confession and the presence of the victim’s blood on his belt, coupled with her testimony, demonstrate that he was in the residence when the crimes occurred. Moore also argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the rape charge, because he fully accounted for his whereabouts when the crime occurred. The jury was not bound to believe Moore’s alibi testimony. The victim identified Moore at trial by his voice. Her blood was found on his belt, and he confessed to raping her. Accepting as true this evidence supporting the verdict, the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
