Morales v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01645-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-09-2008 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of marijuana - Jury instruction - Voir dire - Motion to suppress 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: 08-10-2007 Appealed from: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF MORE THAN FIVE KILOGRAMS OF MARIJUANA AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE OF $50,000 District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 07-CR-054-NWG |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | NORBERTO R. MORALES A/K/A NORBERTO RENTERIA MORALES A/K/A JOSE |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS,
P. SHAWN HARRIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA LYNN BLOUNT | ||
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: | Possession of marijuana - Jury instruction - Voir dire - Motion to suppress |
| Summary of the Facts: | Norberto Morales was convicted for the crime of possession of more than five kilograms of marijuana. He was sentenced to twenty-eight years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Morales argues that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing one of his proffered jury instructions because doing so denied him the right to present his theory of the case to the jury. While a defendant is entitled to jury instructions that present his or her theory of the case, the trial court’s refusal to give Morales’ proposed instruction does not require reversal because its contents were covered fairly elsewhere in instructions given by the trial court. Issue 2: Voir dire Morales argues that the prosecution’s question during voir dire violated URCCC 3.05 and 3.07. Because Morales made no contemporaneous objection at trial, this issue is waived. In addition, any error is harmless. The prosecution did not misstate the law, and the jury was later properly instructed on the law of possession through the jury instructions given by the trial court. Issue 3: Motion to suppress Morales argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that his statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. To be admissible, a confession must have been intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily given, and not a product of police threats, promises or inducements. The State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an inculpatory statement was voluntarily given is met and a prima facie case established by the testimony of an officer, or other persons having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without threats, coercion, or offers of reward. At the suppression hearing, three deputies testified that none of the officers present at the scene told Morales “ we can either do it the easy way or the hard way.” Further, all of the deputies testified that Morales was not promised a reward or leniency or threatened in any way. Thus, the State met its burden of proving that Morales’ statements were made voluntarily. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
