Howard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00671-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00671-COA ; 2007-CT-00671-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-12-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Weight of evidence - Supplemental jury instructions 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: 03-12-2007 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $1,000. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2006-0039 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DENNIS DARNELL HOWARD |
JOHN KEITH PERRY,
ANTWAYN LAVELL PATRICK |
||
| 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 - Weight of evidence - Supplemental jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennis Howard was convicted for the crime of armed robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Howard argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Because Howard presented no challenge to the weight of the evidence in the trial court, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 2: Supplemental jury instructions A trial judge is authorized to give supplemental jury instructions under URCCC 3.10. Howard argues that the trial judge’s supplemental jury instructions were confusing. Given that the jury had explicit questions regarding the proper treatment of defense counsel’s statement, the trial judge correctly determined that further instruction was necessary and properly undertook the responsibility of providing the jury with further guidance. The jury instructions were stated with sufficient clarity and did not possess a likelihood to confuse or mislead the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
