Hendrix v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01777-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01777-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Taking a motor vehicle & Felony malicious mischief - Sufficiency of evidence - Accomplice instruction - Discovery violations - Prior consistent statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-02-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF FELONY CRIME OF TAKING A VEHICLE AND SENTENCED TO TWO CONCURRENT FIVE YEAR TERMS TO SERVE IN THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF FELONY MALICIOUS MISCHIEF AND SENTENCED TO TWO CONCURRENT FIVE YEAR TERMS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY WITH THE FELONY CRIME OF TAKING A VEHICLE SENTENCES. District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG Case Number: CR04-580/581 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MITCHELL SHANE HENDRIX |
JOHN CARL HELMERT |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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: | Taking a motor vehicle & Felony malicious mischief - Sufficiency of evidence - Accomplice instruction - Discovery violations - Prior consistent statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mitchell Hendrix was convicted of two counts of taking a motor vehicle and two counts of felony malicious mischief. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Hendrix argues that his two accomplices’ testimony was uncorroborated because accomplice testimony cannot corroborate another accomplice’s testimony and that both accomplices’ testimony was so unreasonable, improbable, contradictory, and substantially impeached as to render the State’s case legally insufficient. No Mississippi case law exists to support Hendrix’s assertion that one accomplice cannot corroborate the testimony of another accomplice. It is within the province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility to attach to each witness’s testimony. The jury clearly believed the portions of the accomplices’ testimony which implicated Hendrix in the crimes charged. Hendrix also argues that the State listed the vehicle identification numbers of the buses taken from Mooreville High School in the indictment but failed to offer proof of the buses’ vehicle identification numbers at trial. The indictment listed the essential elements of the crime, and the inclusion of the vehicle identification numbers in the indictment was mere surplusage. Issue 2: Accomplice instruction Hendrix offered an accomplice instruction which was given as amended by the trial court. He now argues that the word “suspicion” must be used in an accomplice instruction. However, Hendrix cannot attribute error to the trial court for an alleged error of his own creation. Issue 3: Discovery violations Hendrix argues that the State’s failure to disclose the existence of cards with smudged prints was a discovery violation which prejudiced his defense. It is improbable that the fingerprint cards would have been favorable to the defendant or had an impact on the outcome of the trial. Hendrix also argues that the loss or destruction of the cards requires reversal. However, testimony reveals that the officer clearly did not believe that the smudged fingerprints had any inculpatory or exculpatory value. Further, the record is wholly devoid of any evidence that the officer acted in bad faith. Issue 4: Prior consistent statement Hendrix argues that the court erred by bolstering the testimony of a witness by admitting his prior consistent statement. Defense counsel clearly attempted to impeach the witness by referring to alleged discrepancies between his original statement to the police, his testimony at Hendrix’s bond hearing, and his trial testimony. Defense counsel also attempted to show that the witness’s trial testimony was the result of improper influence or motive, i.e. given in exchange for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the trial court correctly allowed the witness’s prior statement into evidence under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) in order to rebut defense counsel’s implied charge of fabrication. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
