Easterling v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00838-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-21-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Pre-trial identifications - Continuance - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-27-2006 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY, SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 05-351-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ART TYRONE EASTERLING |
WM. ANDY SUMRALL |
||
| 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: | Grand larceny - Pre-trial identifications - Continuance - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Art Easterling was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to ten years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Pre-trial identifications Easterling argues that witnesses’ identifications of Easterling in the police car were suggestive and prejudicial and that all four identification witnesses did not testify with absolute certainty that they could recognize him as the same man who ran from the truck and was chased. In eyewitness identifications, Mississippi courts look to whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even through the confrontation was suggestive. In this case, the victim was merely a few feet away from the man stealing his property. The two Dairy Fresh employees both looked at the man running across the lot from a distance of approximately twenty-five feet. All three witnesses identified Easterling not more than a couple of hours after seeing him. All witnesses identified Easterling at the scene with a high level of certainty, even though they could not do so at trial. While identifying Easterling sitting in a patrol car may have been suggestive, the circuit court properly evaluated the admissibility of the identifications. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence of the pre-trial identifications. Issue 2: Continuance Easterling was initially represented by the Forrest County public defender’s office. At least two weeks prior to trial, Easterling discussed his case with a private attorney concerning possible representation of Easterling. However, Easterling did not retain the attorney until the day before trial. Easterling argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance resulted in manifest injustice. Easterling caused this undesirable situation by delaying the hiring of new counsel until the last minute. Where a defendant retains new counsel at the eleventh hour, he is not entitled to a continuance merely because new counsel was unprepared. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Easterling argues that there was no credible link between him and the person who stole the property. There were four witnesses who stated on the evening of the crime that Easterling was the person who either stole the property or ran from the police. Easterling was found near the abandoned stolen property with fresh mud on his boots and no credentials to be where he was. Based on the evidence presented to the jury, the guilty verdict is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
