Starr v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-01878-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-16-2008
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated domestic assault - Miranda waiver - M.R.E. 104(a) - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irvings, Barnes, and Ishee, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J., concurs in the result only with separate written opinion joined by Griffis and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-15-2007
Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court
Judge: Kathy King Jackson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE OF $5,000 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND
District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III
Case Number: 2006-11,283

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JUNE ALLEN STARR, JR. A/K/A JUNE ALLEN STARR, SR. A/K/A ALLEN JUNE STARR, JR.




JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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: Aggravated domestic assault - Miranda waiver - M.R.E. 104(a) - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3)

    Summary of the Facts: June Allen Starr, Sr. was convicted of aggravated domestic assault and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Starr argues that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when police officers proceeded with a custodial interrogation having not obtained a Miranda waiver, or, in the alternative, that his waiver was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Starr concedes that counsel failed to make any objection based on alleged Miranda and Fifth Amendment violations before or during trial regarding the admission of the taped interrogation. Under M.R.E. 104(a), the appropriate judicial body to rule on Starr’s objection to the admissibility of his statements during the interrogation was the trial court. Allen’s failure to object to the admission of the evidence at trial constituted a waiver of his ability to appeal the issue. However, the Court will determine if the admission of the interrogation constituted plain error under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3). There is no question that Starr was adequately informed of his rights. He was fully apprised of them by the detective at the outset of the police interrogation. The question is whether Starr validly waived his rights, specifically his right to remain silent. Starr refused to sign the written waiver, but according to the testimony of the detective, Starr nodded his head in the affirmative when he was asked if he understood the rights that had been read to him. The verbal exchange is evidenced by both the tape and the transcription. The fact that Starr refused to sign the written waiver is not enough to establish the non-existence of a waiver. He never indicated that he did not want to talk, just that he did not want to go to prison. Starr assured the officers that he was telling the truth. He then answered questions and explained how the gun accidently fired. He indicated a willingness to talk by actively participating in the interrogation. There was sufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that Starr's waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent. Additionally, the State presented overwhelming evidence of guilt.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court