Peters v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00217-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Identity of confidential informant - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, 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: 10-02-2006 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: K02-0025E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ADAM TROY PETERS |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| 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 - Identity of confidential informant - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Adam Peters was convicted as a habitual offender of armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identity of confidential informant Peters argues that the court abused its discretion in failing to reveal the identity of the confidential informant. The trial court determined that the confidential informant was not material, but merely saw Peters in an area near the Subway restaurant at the time of the robbery. Disclosure of the identity of an informer, who is not a material witness to the guilt or innocence of the accused, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Additionally, according to the record, the confidential informant was not being called to testify by either side. Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Peters argues that the testimony from the two victims of the robbery was inconsistent and unreliable. There was sufficient weight in the evidence against Peters so as to allow the verdict against him to stand. Although the two victims initially did not identify Peters as the suspect in the first photographic lineup, they later separately and individually identified Peters in a physical lineup. Further, Peters confessed to the robbery in a valid confession, which was admitted into evidence at trial. Additionally, a confidential informant placed Peters in an area near the Subway restaurant at the time of the robbery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
