Qualls v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00525-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-23-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary & Attempted grand larceny - Defective indictment - Probable cause for arrest - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2005 Appealed from: Claiborne County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: CONVICTED OF AUTO BURGLARY AND ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: ALEXANDER C. MARTIN Case Number: CR2004-7 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WILLIE JENE QUALLS |
JAMES L. PENLEY |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JACOB RAY |
|
|
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: | Burglary & Attempted grand larceny - Defective indictment - Probable cause for arrest - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Qualls was tried and convicted of one count of burglary and one count of attempted grand larceny. He was sentenced to seven years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Qualls argues that he was not fully informed of the charges he would face because there were two separate indictments which created difficulties in knowing which charges he was to defend. Not only did both indictments have similar charges and proof, but Qualls was specifically informed by both his own defense attorney at that time and an assistant district attorney which indictment the State was planning to pursue. Qualls also argues that there were several defects with his first indictment, i.e., the indictment lacks a date or seal and contains an inaccurate vehicle description. Since the first indictment was never formally dismissed by the trial court, these errors cannot be examined on appeal. In addition, the indictment is not contained in the record. With regard to the second indictment, it was properly filed with the circuit clerk and clearly lists the vehicle’s make, model, VIN number and owner which is sufficient. Issue 2: Probable cause for arrest Qualls argues that the police officers had mere suspicion regarding the white automobile parked in the driveway, and that this was insufficient probable cause to arrest or search the occupants of the vehicle. Given reasonable circumstances, an officer may stop and detain an individual to resolve an ambiguous situation, even when there is not sufficient knowledge to justify an arrest. A police officer may make an investigative stop when he has a reasonable suspicion that the accused is involved in a felony or other criminal activity. Here, the arresting officer testified that he was aware that there had been an attempted vehicle burglary nearby, and that the perpetrator had run away. He also knew two suspects, one wearing a white T-shirt, had been seen running between houses in the area. He then saw a suspicious vehicle pulled half-way off the street into an elderly couple’s driveway, with a Warren County tag. Initially, he saw one individual in the vehicle. Based on the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to knock on the vehicle’s window. When the individual seen inside the car did not respond to the officer’s two requests to exit the vehicle, the officer had probable cause to break the car window and detain the individual, and the other occupant, for additional questioning. The fact that the officer only saw one individual in the vehicle initially, when two men were seen running in the neighborhood, does not lessen the officer’s reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion and properly found there was probable cause to arrest Qualls. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Qualls argues that the jury verdict was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, because there was no direct evidence connecting him to the attempted crime. An eyewitness was able to identify the general appearance of the suspect as he ran from the truck. Two persons, one fitting the description of the suspect, were seen running in the area near the crime scene. In this same time frame a car with a Warren County tag was blocking an elderly couple’s driveway. The occupants refused to respond to police orders. Once out of the car, Qualls fit the description of the burglary suspect. These men were sweating in the car as if they had been running. Thus, the jury was presented with substantial evidence to support its conviction of Qualls for auto burglary and attempted grand larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. Qualls also argues that the State failed to show the intent element for the crime of auto burglary. A jury could reasonably find that an individual, driving another person’s truck down his driveway, in the early morning hours in a vehicle with a broken steering column, and who runs away when confronted, has the intent to steal that vehicle. The evidence linking Qualls to the crime, although circumstantial, was sufficient for the jury to find Qualls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the exclusion of any hypothesis consistent with innocence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
