Keys v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00138-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00138-COA ; 2006-CT-00138-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault on officer - Self-incrimination - Sufficiency of evidence - Admission of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2003 Appealed from: PERRY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF SIMPLE ASSAULT OF A POLICE OFFICER AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO SENTENCE IN FORREST COUNTY CAUSE NO.12,214 District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 5036 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | KENNETH WAYNE KEYS A/K/A KENNETH WAYNE KEYES |
HERBERT H. KLEIN |
||
| 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: | Simple assault on officer - Self-incrimination - Sufficiency of evidence - Admission of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Keys was convicted of simple assault on a police officer. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Self incrimination Keys argues that his answer to the deputy’s question, concerning what Keys thought he would register on the breathalyzer, was inadmissible, because he was under arrest at the time the question was asked. The question to Keys was asked prior to the deputy obtaining an incriminating reading from the breathalyzer device. No arrest had yet been made. Keys was not subject to a custodial interrogation and did not need to receive Miranda warnings at the moment he was asked what he would register on a breathalyzer. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Keys argues that the evidence could only support a conviction for misdemeanor resisting arrest if the jury would have been allowed to consider the illegality of the arrest. The deputy testified that Keys used his left elbow while striking him in the temple and such a strike must have been intentional due to Keys having to extend his elbow behind his back to strike the deputy. The deputy also testified that Keys used his fist when striking him in the mouth. This testimony alone was legally sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Keys of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. Issue 3: Evidentiary errors Keys argues that the court erred in allowing evidence of another crime, erred in allowing the jury to speculate as to the alleged intoxication level of Keys, and erred in allowing the parole officer to testify. The testimony concerning intoxication was advanced to explain why Keys was being placed under arrest, and why a physical altercation resulted. The evidence was not advanced to prove that Keys was intoxicated, but only that there was probable cause for the arrest. In addition, the arguments concerning intoxication are waived because Keys failed to object at trial. Keys argues that the testimony of the parole officer communicated to the jury that Keys was a prior convicted felon. The testimony presented does not indicate that Keys and the parole officer had any relationship. Thus, the judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the officer to testify. Issue 4: Prosecutorial misconduct Keys argues that the prosecution made an improper and prejudicial comment during opening arguments about giving officers extra protection in the law because of the dangerousness of what they do. A statute providing for an increased punishment for assaulting a police officer does provide extra protection for police. The judge did not err in deciding the comment had no prejudicial effect. Issue 5: Jury instructions Keys argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions that Keys had the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The court properly refuses a jury instruction concerning an illegal arrest where the evidence did not support a theory of illegal arrest. The evidence was uncontradicted that Keys engaged in a violent physical struggle with the deputy which resulted in both men sustaining multiple injuries. Therefore, the judge did not err in determining that there was a lack of evidence to support an instruction on illegal arrest. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
