Carr v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01301-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01301-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Right to speedy trial - Chain of custody - Admission of videotaped statement - Reasonable doubt - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-09-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTION OF MANSLAUGHTER - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2002-238-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TIMOTHY CARR |
JEANNENE PACIFIC
PAMELA LYNN HUDDLESTON |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter - Right to speedy trial - Chain of custody - Admission of videotaped statement - Reasonable doubt - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Carr was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Carr argues that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The factors to consider in determining whether a defendant’s right to speedy trial has been violated include length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Approximately twenty-eight months elapsed between Carr’s arrest and trial which is presumptively prejudicial. While some of the delay appears attributable to the State due to a delay in scientific testing, Carr did go through several changes of counsel, until finally one of the defense attorneys was elected as the district attorney. Carr did not assert his right. While there was a lengthy pre-trial incarceration, there is no assertion, or even suggestion, that the delay caused actual prejudice to Carr’s defense. Taking the four factors into consideration, there was no denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Issue 2: Chain of custody Carr argues that the court denied his motion to suppress the introduction of the fire extinguisher because the chain of custody had been broken, due to an evidence tag inexplicably having come apart from the fire extinguisher. There was never any suggestion that the fire extinguisher had been tampered with in any way to change its weight or size or any other aspect affecting its potential to be used to kill Winston. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing its introduction. Issue 3: Admission of videotaped statement The videotape was edited, at Carr’s request, to exclude mention of his prior convictions of robbery. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting his videotaped statement. Issue 4: Reasonable doubt After the jury had retired to deliberate, it sent a note to the trial judge asking to have reasonable doubt re-explained to them in written form. The trial judge called the jury back into the courtroom, and explained reasonable doubt, without any objection from Carr. The issue is procedurally barred due to Carr’s failure to contemporaneously object. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Evidence established that Carr was at the scene of the crime, and clothing similar to that which he was wearing at the scene of the crime was later found in a dumpster at the apartment complex where Carr lived. The clothing had blood on it which was determined to have been the victim’s blood. Further, Carr gave a statement admitting to a physical confrontation with the victim. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
