Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02197-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02197-COA2005-CT-02197-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 07-18-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-25-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Hearsay - Credit card statements - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(6) - Photographs - Weight of evidence - Right to remain silent - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3) - M.R.E. 103(d) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-11-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT PAROLE District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 03-0-967 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RONNIE SMITH A/K/A RONNIE EDWARD SMITH |
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS
WILLIAM R. LABARRE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Hearsay - Credit card statements - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(6) - Photographs - Weight of evidence - Right to remain silent - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3) - M.R.E. 103(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ronnie Smith was convicted for the crime of capital murder in the commission of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to life without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay testimony Smith argues that the court erred when it allowed the testimony of the contents of credit card statements of credit cards belonging to the victim and that the State did not call anyone from the credit card company to authenticate that the information was kept during the ordinary course of business. Statements are not hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c) when they are admitted to explain the officer’s course of investigation. Here, the testimony was offered for the purpose of establishing the manner in which the police conducted their investigation and is, therefore, admissible. With regard to admission of the statements, Smith failed to object and therefore, the issue is waived. In addition, testimony by a detective as to the amounts and times that the credit card was used did not prejudice the outcome of the trial, because the jury heard much of the same testimony throughout the trial from other witnesses. Smith also argues that the court erred by admitting testimony about the Cabot Lodge manager’s description of the physical characteristics of the person who used the credit cards to check into the hotel, because this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. The trial court allowed the testimony as part of the detective’s course of investigation; however, because the testimony went to the content of the manager’s interview, it did not just include the steps and process the detectives took during their investigation and, therefore, should not have been allowed as within the scope of the police investigation. The error was, however, harmless since the Cabot Lodge manager testified at trial. Smith argues that the detective’s testimony about what the Wal-Mart employee told him was inadmissible hearsay. This testimony is within the scope of the detective’s investigation and, therefore, not hearsay. The trial judge did abuse her discretion in allowing the Wal-Mart receipt without proper foundation under M.R.E. 803(6). No one from Wal-Mart authenticated the evidence before the judge allowed it to be admitted into evidence. However, this error was harmless due to the fact that a witness testified that he drove Smith to Wal-Mart, that he went into the store with Smith, they purchased a television, and used a credit card to pay. Issue 2: Photographs Smith argues that photographs of the victim’s body in his home when police arrived and during the autopsy were offered repeatedly for no other purpose than to inflame the passion of the jury. The photographs have substantial probative value. The pictures were used to identify the victim, to depict the victim as found at the scene of the murder, and to help corroborate the State’s position as to the cause of death. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Smith argues that the prosecution never produced direct evidence that he killed the victim while engaged in the commission of a robbery. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude that Smith was guilty even without direct evidence. Witnesses testified that the victim’s credit cards were missing after his death, that his pockets were turned inside out, that one card was used at several stores, and that Smith was in each of the stores where the card was used. The evidence was corroborated by Smith’s friend who drove him to the different stores and witnessed Smith using the credit cards to purchase items. Issue 4: Right to remain silent During re-direct examination, the detective McDonald testified that “[after] I asked Ronnie where he got the credit cards from, he dropped his head.” Smith argues that the comment was a violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights to remain silent. Smith failed to object at trial. A suspect invokes the right to remain silent by indicating in some way that he does not want to talk to authorities. Smith never invoked his right to remain silent. He repeatedly asked what he was doing at the police station. Since Smith never invoked his right to remain silent, no substantial right was affected and he is not protected by M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3) or M.R.E. 103(d). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
