White v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01737-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01737-COA ; 2005-CT-01737-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Challenges for cause - Right to speedy trial - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Lesser-included offense instruction Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-14-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: CONVICTION OF ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 03-0-607(D) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JEROME WHITE A/K/A TYRONE WHITE |
DONALD W. BOYKIN |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN |
|
|
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: | Armed robbery - Challenges for cause - Right to speedy trial - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Lesser-included offense instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jerome White was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty-five years, fifteen years of that time suspended, and five years probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Challenges for cause White argues that three jurors should have been struck for cause because they had formed an opinion of White’s guilt when they walked in the room and, therefore, could not be fair and impartial during trial. He also argues that another juror should have been struck for cause because she was a victim of an armed robbery. The three jurors basically stated that they thought White might have done something wrong because he was in court and sitting next to an attorney. Each took an oath that they were able to remain impartial. The fact that some of the jurors wondered why White was in the room is not dispositive that they could not be impartial. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant White’s challenges for cause. Issue 2: Right to speedy trial White argues that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated. Factors to be considered include length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The delay of approximately 22 ½ months between White’s arrest and trial is presumptively prejudicial. The State is charged with 428 days of delay because of continuances it requested. White never requested nor moved for a speedy trial. White makes no assertion that the delay prejudiced his trial. Given these factors, White’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated. Since less than 270 days are counted against the State, White was tried within the statutory limits. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence White argues that it is unclear of what crime the jury found him guilty since the indictment charged him with “armed robbery or attempted armed robbery” and the jury returned a verdict simply finding White “guilty as charged.” Since section 97-3-79 makes both an attempt to take and an actual taking armed robbery, the jury verdict was not unclear as this section treats both crimes equally. White also argues that the facts show that he abandoned the crime. A perpetrator cannot claim that he abandoned his attempt when, in fact, he ceased his efforts because the victim or a third party intervened or prevented him from furthering the attempt. White and his accomplice had consummated the act of armed robbery before they decided to return the victim’s property to him. Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 4: Jury instruction White argues that the court erred in denying his jury instruction which presented White’s defense of abandonment. No evidentiary basis existed to find that White abandoned the crime of armed robbery prior to the consummation of the offense since the evidence shows that White consummated the act of armed robbery. Since no evidentiary basis existed for an abandonment instruction, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant White’s jury instruction. Issue 5: Hearsay The trial court excluded certain testimony of a detective regarding White’s intent to steal a car based on hearsay objections. White argues that his defense was prejudiced without the testimony because the jury was instructed to find him guilty of armed robbery if he committed armed robbery against the victim by taking or attempting to take the victim’s wallet containing lawful currency and credit cards “or any other property” from the victim. White argues that the testimony should have been admitted under M.R.E. 803(3) as it would have constituted a hearsay exception as to the declarant’s intent, plan, or motive to do something in the future. When a perpetrator attempts to rob a victim, the perpetrator may not know what valuables, if any, the victim has with him. Armed robbery is not defeated when the perpetrator finds out that the victim has nothing of value to take. White’s defense was not prejudiced nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by not allowing this testimony as it was not necessary to White’s defense. Issue 6: Lesser-included offense instruction White argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant an instruction which provided for the lesser-included offenses of robbery and assault. A jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is to be given only when a defendant points to evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably find him not guilty of the crime with which he was charged and at the same time find him guilty of the lesser-included offense. White has pointed to no evidence by which a jury could find him not guilty of armed robbery and yet guilty of robbery or assault. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
