Young v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KP-01690-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-01690-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-31-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Carjacking - Weight of evidence - Identification testimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-15-2002 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT 1-CARJACKING AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, WITH FIVE YEARS’ POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND A FINE OF $1,000 AND $250 TO THE CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION FUND District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2001-0281-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PHILLIP YOUNG |
PHILLIP YOUNG (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Carjacking - Weight of evidence - Identification testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Phillip Young was convicted of carjacking and was sentenced to fifteen years, with ten years to serve and five years suspended and five years’ post-release supervision. Young appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Young argues that because the victim testified that she was outside of the vehicle rather than inside, that she was not in “immediate actual possession” and, therefore, the State had not proven all of the elements of a carjacking. The legislature did not intend the statute be construed so literally as to mean that a person commits a carjacking only when an individual is physically inside the vehicle. The victim testified that she had just retrieved some money from the vehicle and had the keys in her hand when she was approached by Young, who then demanded the keys from her, snatched them out of her hand and drove off. Given the evidence, allowing the verdict to stand would not be an unconscionable injustice. Issue 2: Identification testimony Young argues that the court erred in denying the pretrial suppression motion regarding the witnesses’ identification of him to the officer when Young was brought into the Indianola Police Station in handcuffs. However, the officers did not do anything purposeful to arrange the encounter which led to the witnesses’ identification of Young as the man who had stolen their vehicle. In addition, the identification of Young was not made under such unnecessarily suggestive circumstances as to destroy the probative value of their identification. Young also argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated regarding the “show-up” incident and then later the photographic identification by the witnesses. The adversarial process begins when the law enforcement arm of the state takes the defendant into custody, and charges him with a crime. Young was merely a suspect at the time of the pretrial identifications and no formal charges had yet been made against him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
