Brunner v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00469-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00469-COA ; 2008-CT-00469-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-03-2009
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: House burglary, Aggravated assault, Armed robbery, & Auto theft - Defense theory instruction - Misidentification instruction - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): MAXWELL, J.
Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Motion for Rehearing
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-28-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Bobby DeLaughter
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, HOUSE BURGLARY, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTY YEARS; COUNT II, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO FORTY YEARS; COUNT III, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO EIGHTY YEARS; AND COUNT IV, AUTO THEFT, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS, WITH ALL SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson
Case Number: 06-0-489(1,2,3,& 4)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JOE LEE BRUNNER




WILLIAM R. LABARRE, VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #2 Brief
  • Sur Reply Brief

  • 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: House burglary, Aggravated assault, Armed robbery, & Auto theft - Defense theory instruction - Misidentification instruction - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Joe Brunner was convicted of house burglary, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and auto theft. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Defense theory instruction Brunner argues that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to grant his requested instruction, which he claims provided the jury with the heart of his defense theory, that of misidentification. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. The general instruction given to the jury to the effect that the State has the burden of proving each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, includes the misidentification issue. Here, in five of the given jury instructions, the trial court instructed the jury that the State bore the burden of proving each element of each offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, which included the identity of the perpetrator. Thus, the instructions encompassed the issue of misidentification. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Brunner argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered the victims’ home and committed the crimes for which he was charged because of the extraordinarily weak identification of one of the victims. There was ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. Brunner testified that he worked for one of the victims who fired him for stealing on the job. Weeks later, an intruder severely beat and robbed one of the victims and stole their Cadillac. Brunner testified that on the same day , he “rented” a Cadillac which law enforcement later identified as the stolen Cadillac. Though the victim Brunner beat was not wearing her eyeglasses at the time of the attack, she observed the intruder in her bedroom for at least ten minutes. On her way to the emergency room, she identified her attacker as someone who had once worked for her husband. Any factual disputes, such as the victim’s ability to see her attacker, fell within the province of the jury.


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