Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00140-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00140-COA ; 2006-CT-00140-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-13-2006 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN Case Number: 05-CR-058-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RAYMOND L. MOORE A/K/A RAYMOND LEWAYNE MOORE |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN |
|
|
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 - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Moore was convicted of burglary and sentenced to seven years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Cross-examination Moore argues that the court erred when it prohibited his continued cross-examination of a witness, because his questions were relevant to the issue of whether he was the accomplice in the burglary. M.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Another person’s whereabouts as of the date of the trial (which is what Moore was questioning the witness about) does not make it less probable that Moore and another person burglarized the storage shed at an earlier time. Accordingly, the excluded testimony was irrelevant. Moore also argues that the court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine the witness regarding his pending charges, because that was permissible pursuant to M.R.E. 608(b). Moore sought to show that, because the witness had some unnamed and otherwise undeveloped unrelated pending charges, it was likely that he was lying about Moore’s involvement in the burglary. That the witness had some unmentioned and unrelated charges pending is not, in and of itself, probative of untruthfulness. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained the prosecution’s objection. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Moore’s argument concerning the weight of the evidence is procedurally barred. Moore’s brief, generalized, and conclusory argument failed to distinguish any particular deficiency in the proof, or to assert how the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
