Robinson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00437-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00437-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-23-2010
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Burglary of building - Closing argument - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(a) & (b)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Griffis and Ishee, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Myers, P.J., without separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., without separate written opinion.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ., concur in result only without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2008
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: KENNETH L. THOMAS
Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A BUILDING 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: 2007-0123

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WILLIE JOE ROBINSON




W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF, LESLIE S. LEE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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: Burglary of building - Closing argument - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(a) & (b)

    Summary of the Facts: Willie Robinson was convicted of burglary of a building and sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Closing argument Robinson argues that comments the prosecutor made during closing arguments constituted a direct comment on his constitutional right not to testify. The Fifth Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from commenting during closing argument regarding a defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent or not to testify. However, Robinson failed to object to the offending remarks at the time the remarks were uttered, thereby depriving the circuit court of an opportunity to take corrective measures. Issue 2: Prior conviction Robinson argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present to the jury evidence of his 2001 conviction for attempted grand larceny. During the trial for the 2007 burglary of a building, the circuit judge allowed the State to introduce evidence of Robinson’s prior conviction for a 2001 attempted grand larceny under M.R.E. 609. Rule 609 allows the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes if evidentiary requirements pertaining to impeachment, probative value, and prejudice are met. The State argued that Robinson’s prior conviction constituted evidence showing Robinson’s motive, plan, or scheme to steal in this case. Therefore, M.R.E. 404(b), not Rule 609, would have been the proper evidentiary rule to evaluate the admission of past crimes for probative value of intent, plan, or scheme. The record contains no facts or evidence showing any probative connection or factual relationship to the current 2007 burglary of a building crime charged, and the State presented no theory showing any connection between the 2001 conviction and the 2007 charged offense. The prosecutor’s link between the two crimes revealed itself during closing argument, when he stated to the jury, “[Robinson has] stolen before. He is, in fact, a thief.” Clearly, Rule 404(a) prohibits the prosecutor’s argument as to Robinson’s predisposition to steal. Without a probative link or interconnecting evidence, the State’s argument regarding Robinson’s prior conviction constituted impermissible character predisposition evidence. Rule 609 applies to evidence used to impeach a witness. The attempted grand larceny conviction, however, failed to constitute a tool to impeach Robinson, because he did not testify. The circuit court therefore abused its discretion in the admission of Robinson’s prior 2001 conviction.


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