Martin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01470-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-07-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Accessory after the fact - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-1-5 - Right to confront witnesses - Hearsay Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-30-2001 Appealed from: George County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: GUILTY OF ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT OF BURGLARY, SENTENCE OF 5 YEARS, FINED AND ORDERED TO PAY RESTITUTION. District Attorney: Robert Keith Miller Case Number: 200110,015(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William C. Martin |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
||
| 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: | Accessory after the fact - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-1-5 - Right to confront witnesses - Hearsay |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Martin was found guilty of accessory after the fact to burglary. He was sentenced to five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Martin argues that the evidence was vague and inconclusive. Section 97-1-5 defines an accessory after the fact as one who has concealed, received, or relieved any felon, or having aided or assisted any felon, knowing that such person had committed a felony, with intent to enable such felon to escape or to avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. The testimony shows that Martin was the room at the motel when the three other participants returned after the burglary, and that Martin was involved in dumping the cash register into a stream and retrieving the stashed cigarettes. Although most of the evidence was circumstantial, the jury could easily infer that Martin was helping get rid of the evidence from the burglary in order to help the participants avoid arrest. Issue 2: Right to confront witnesses Martin argues that he was denied his fundamental right to confront the witnesses against him because the investigator was permitted to testify how Martin was implicated as an accessory to the crime and that the investigator's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. When Martin objected to the testimony, the judge properly sustained the objection and instructed the investigator not to mention what was in the statements. Once the judge sustained the objection, any defect in the investigator's testimony was cured. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
