Croft v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01331-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2008 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 616 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: JNOV; Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-06-2007 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: Count l: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of twenty-five (25) years, with conditions, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Count IV: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of twenty-five (25) years, with conditions, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Affirmed. Count V: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of twenty-five (25) years, with conditions, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count I shall run consecutive to any and all sentences previously imposed. The trial court denied Croft's motion for JNOV and motion for a new trial. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2006-034-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANTHONY CROFT |
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF INDIGENT
APPEALS BY: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER |
|
|
| 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: | Armed robbery - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 616 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Croft was convicted on three of five counts of armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty-five years for each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of testimony Croft argues that the court erred by not allowing the testimony of a narcotics investigator who did not participate in the robbery investigation. Croft argues the court failed to consider M.R.E. 616, which provides for the admission of evidence for the purpose of showing the bias, prejudice, or interest of a witness. There is no doubt that the investigator’s proffered testimony revealed nothing other than a collateral matter. A matter is collateral if it is not one embodying a fact substantive in its nature and relevant to the issue made in the case. And it is error to allow a witness to be contradicted on an immaterial (or collateral) matter. The trial court essentially found the investigator’s ongoing drug investigation to be a matter wholly unrelated and immaterial to any of the issues likely to be addressed in the State’s case against Croft. The record supports this finding. The fact that the investigator was conducting a drug investigation simply had no substantive bearing on the relevant attendant circumstances (res gestae) surrounding the night Croft was alleged to have committed the armed robbery. Injecting it into the case would have served no purpose other than to unfairly prejudice the State’s case by confusing the jury with inconclusive information that one of the State’s witnesses was being investigated for drug activity. The investigator’s testimony offered no impeachment value, and established no substantive evidence regarding bias, prejudice, or motive on the part of another person. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Croft argues that the State failed to prove the element of felonious intent. The record shows that Croft entered the establishment, drew a pistol, ordered the three individuals to relinquish possessive control of their money, and with the aid and abetment of others, assumed control over it. In the instance of one of the individuals, his placing $600 from his pocket onto the table, after being ordered by Croft–with gun in hand–to do so, constituted an overt act. When coupled with the State’s proof that Croft intended to steal the $600, the elements for attempt were met. Thus, the State’s evidence sufficiently shows that Croft, himself, or through the aid and abetment of others, took more than what he claimed rightfully belonged to him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
