Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01573-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-16-2010 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Business burglary - Admission of testimony about surveillance video - URCCC 9.04 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-03-2008 Appealed from: QUITMAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: KENNETH L. THOMAS Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A BUSINESS AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2008-0005 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LEANDER SMITH A/K/A LEE ANDREW SMITH
A/K/A TIGER |
GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE, WILBERT LEVON JOHNSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
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: | Business burglary - Admission of testimony about surveillance video - URCCC 9.04 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leander Smith was convicted of business burglary. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding a surveillance video of the burglary, in violation of URCCC 9.04. He argues that since the parties had stipulated that there would be no testimony about the video, the circuit court should have granted a mistrial. Here, the defense opened the door to testimony about the surveillance video by asking an employee of Family Dollar Store as to how she was sure her memory about Smith committing the burglary was accurate, and she answered. The Family Dollar Store, not the State, possessed the video. The defense was notified of the existence of the video, but still threw open the door. Objectionable statements are not error if they are the product of direct and cross-examinations by the defense counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
