Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-02159-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Jury instruction - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-08-2006 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: FOUND GUILTY OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND SENTENCED TO TWELVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FOUR YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2006-016cr |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LARRY M. MOORE |
GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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: | Sale of cocaine - Jury instruction - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Moore was found guilty of the sale of cocaine and was sentenced to twelve years, with four years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Moore argues that the court erred in denying his proposed jury instruction which would have informed the jury that it could not consider Moore’s indictment as evidence of his guilt. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. There is no doubt that the court should have granted an instruction that informed the jury that it could not consider the indictment as evidence of Moore’s guilt. However, this error was harmless in light of the court’s instructions to the jury during voir dire that it could not consider the indictment as evidence of Moore’s guilt. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Moore argues that his conviction is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented at trial. Moore first attacks the undercover purchaser’s credibility, arguing that his identification of Moore was questionable. Issues regarding the credibility of a witness’s testimony are properly resolved by the jury. Moore also points to the quality of the video footage and his assertion that he does not wear “doo rags” and does not own any jewelry like the jewelry shown in the video and the testimony of his mother. The jury heard the testimony of Moore and his mother, as well as the testimony of law enforcement and the person who actually bought the drugs from Moore. The jury resolved any conflicts and determined that Moore was in fact the person shown in the video footage of the buy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
