Flowers v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00609-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00609-COA ; 2008-CT-00609-SCT ; 2008-CT-00609-SCT ; 2008-CT-00609-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-10-2009
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED
Additional Case Information: Topic: House burglary - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A) - Necessity instruction - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 404(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-03-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: CONVICTED OF HOUSE BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH TWO YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson
Case Number: 04-0-126
Note: This opinion was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court on 11/10/2010. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO65720.pdf
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: RONREGUS FLOWERS




 WILLIAM R. LABARRE, VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS, GRETA D. MACK HARRIS



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A) - Necessity instruction - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 404(b)
    Summary of the Facts: Ronregus Flowers was convicted of house burglary and sentenced to ten years with two years of post-release supervision. He appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Hearsay Flowers argues that the trial court erred in excluding statements he made to a deputy as being hearsay, because the statements are admissible under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A). Rule 801(d)(2)(A) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is his own statement. The defendant is barred from introducing a statement made by the defendant immediately after the crime, if it is self-serving, and if the State refuses to use any of it. Any statements made by Flowers to the deputy that were not offered or introduced into evidence by the State would serve Flowers’s argument at trial – that his actions of breaking into the house were justified by necessity. Therefore, the statements were self-serving and were properly excluded by the trial judge as inadmissible hearsay under Rule 801 (d)(2)(A). Issue 2: Necessity instruction Flowers argues that the court erred in refusing his necessity instruction. In order to be entitled to a defense of necessity, the defendant must prove that the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; there was no adequate alternative; and the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. Flowers has failed to meet his burden of proof. Other than his own testimony that an unknown assailant, for an unknown reason, was trying to shoot him, there is nothing in the record to support his claim. Flowers failed to prove that someone was actually chasing after him or trying to shoot him. Also, he failed to show that there was no adequate alternative to breaking into the home. Issue 3: Cross-examination Flowers argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to question him with regard to prior criminal conduct. While evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible under M.R.E. 404(b) to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith, it may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Additionally, once the defense has opened the door to otherwise improper testimony, the prosecution is permitted to enter and develop the matter in great detail. On direct examination, once Flowers claimed it was necessary for him to break into a home because someone was trying to shoot him, it absolutely became relevant as to whom and why. The State was free to question him on why he would have been running from an unknown assailant.


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