Sawyer v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00136-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00136-COA ; 2007-CT-00136-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Severance of counts - Stipulation - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. SENTENCE IN COUNT I ORDERED TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO SENTENCE IN COUNT II. CONVICTED OF COUNT II, CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. SENTENCE IN COUNT II ORDERED TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO SENTENCE IN COUNT I. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 06-0-068 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHARLIE SAWYER A/K/A CHARLIE SAWYER, JR. |
WILLIAM R. LABARRE,
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 - Severance of counts - Stipulation - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charlie Sawyer was convicted of armed robbery and of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Severance of counts Sawyer argues that the court should have severed the two counts against him because the jury would automatically infer that he was guilty of armed robbery, when the jury heard the evidence of his previous convictions for armed robbery, which were necessary to establish the elements of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. When a party moves to sever the counts in an indictment, the trial court must weigh whether the time period between the occurrences is insignificant, whether the evidence proving each count would be admissible to prove each of the other counts, and whether the crimes are interwoven. Because one crime is armed robbery and the other is possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, there is little doubt that both crimes occurred simultaneously. Obviously, the evidence from Count I would be admissible in Count II because both crimes require that the State prove that Sawyer had possession of a firearm, and both crimes happened at exactly the same time. The crimes are clearly interwoven because they occurred at the exact same time and both depend on the fact that Sawyer possessed a firearm. M.R.E. 404(b) implications do not need to be addressed since the evidence in one count may be used to prove the other count. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Sawyer’s motion for severance. Issue 2: Stipulation Sawyer’s counsel made the alternative argument that Sawyer would stipulate that he was a convicted felon. This stipulation would establish Sawyer’s status as a prior convicted felon. Sawyer argues that M.R.E. 404(b) prohibits the introduction of his prior convictions. The State does not offer Sawyer’s two prior convictions for armed robbery as an exception under Rule 404(b), i.e., motive opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Instead, the State sought to establish one of the elements of the crime of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon pursuant to section 97-37-5. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the jury to put aside evidence in Count II that Sawyer had twice before committed armed robbery when it considered Count I, regarding Sawyer’s guilt of armed robbery. Thus, under M.R.E. 403, the probative value of Sawyer’s prior armed robbery convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the jury would use Sawyer’s prior convictions as evidence in considering Count I. The trial court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of Sawyer’s two prior convictions of armed robbery to be admitted into evidence when a valid stipulation was available. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
