Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01623-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01623-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Suppression of evidence - Suppression of statement - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 804(a)(5) - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2005 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: CONVICTED OF THREE COUNTS OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS ON COUNT I, TWENTY YEARS ON COUNT II, AND TWENTY YEARS ON COUNT III, WITH COUNTS II AND III TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, AND COUNT I TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO COUNTS II AND III, FOR A TOTAL OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: David Byrd Clark Case Number: 2003-0305 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JASON CARTER |
WALTER E. WOOD |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 - Suppression of evidence - Suppression of statement - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 804(a)(5) - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jason Carter was convicted of three counts of armed robbery, and was sentenced to thirty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of evidence Carter argues that the court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained after Carter was stopped by police, because the stop was made without reasonable suspicion. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Carter. Carter was observed within fifteen to twenty minutes of the robbery, in close proximity to the location of the robbery, and he and the individuals with him fit the general description of the perpetrators given to the police. Therefore, the officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting Carter of having been involved in criminal activity. Issue 2: Suppression of statement Carter argues that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statement, which Carter alleges was involuntary. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to suppress Carter’s inculpatory statement, as no credible evidence was presented to indicate that the statement was anything other than a voluntary statement. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Carter argues that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for armed robbery against the individuals named in the indictment. The evidence produced at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction in counts II and III of the indictment, which were related to the armed robbery of two individuals identified in the indictment as “Margarita Garcia and Lino Dejesus Garcia.” None of the victims testified at trial because they could not be located after the robbery. No officers testified regarding the identity of the individuals who were questioned at the trailer park the night of the robbery. Without any evidence regarding the identity of the individuals who were robbed at the trailer park, it should have been impossible for the jury to find that the evidence supported a conviction against Carter for the robberies of Margarita and Lino. The State never sought an amendment of the indictment to take out the identity of the victims of the robbery. Furthermore, the identity of the victim is an essential element of the crime of robbery. Because evidence was produced supporting a conviction for the robbery of Rivera, the conviction on that count is affirmed. Because the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction against Carter for the armed robbery of Margarita Garcia and Lino Dejesus Garcia, the convictions on those counts are reversed and rendered. Issue 4: Hearsay Carter argues that the court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by an officer regarding what one of the victims had told him. The testimony in question was admissible as the statement of an unavailable witness. The court clearly did not err in ruling that the victims in this case were unavailable under M.R.E. 804(a)(5), as evidence offered strongly indicated that the State had been unable to procure their attendance by process or other reasonable means. The statement was offered as evidence of a material fact (Carter’s identity and involvement in the crime), the statement was more probative than other evidence that could be produced, and admission of the statement served the interests of justice. The court also made a finding that there were circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Therefore, the statement was admissible under M.R.E. 804(b)(5). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
