Strickland v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-01573-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01573-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-06-2008
Opinion Author: Randolph, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Peremptory challenges - Use of prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - Lesser-included offense instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Diaz, P.J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Graves, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2006
Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: Strickland was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery. The jury could not unanimously agree on the proper punishment; therefore, the trial judge sentenced Strickland to serve a term of 30 years as an habitual offender. Upon finding Strickland to be a habitual offender pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-81, the trial judge directed that Strickland’s thirty-year sentence be served without the benefit of parole or probation. Strickland’s "Motion for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the alternative, a New Trial," was subsequently overruled by the circuit court.
District Attorney: Forrest Allgood
Case Number: 2000-0500-CR1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: James Michael Strickland




Mose Lee Sudduth, Jr.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE McCRORY  

    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 - Peremptory challenges - Use of prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - Lesser-included offense instruction

    Summary of the Facts: James Strickland was convicted of armed robbery. Since the jury was unable to agree unanimously on the sentence of life imprisonment, the trial judge sentenced Strickland to serve a term of thirty years as a habitual offender. Strickland appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Peremptory challenges The State exercised eleven, and Strickland exercised eight, peremptory challenges in selecting the twelve jurors and one alternate. Seven of the State’s peremptory challenges were exercised on African-Americans. Strickland argues that the court committed reversible error in failing to follow the proper procedures to insure the State was fairly presenting race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors. A criminal defendant may make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. To establish the prima facie case, a white defendant must show that the prosecutor has used peremptory challenges on persons of race and that the facts and circumstances give rise to the inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenges in order to strike minorities. Here, the court found that no prima facie case giving rise to an inference of purposeful discrimination was established. The appellate record is devoid of facts revealing the racial composition of either the venire or the ultimately empaneled jury. The lone circumstance giving rise to the inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenges in order to strike minorities was that a larger number of African-Americans, compared to Caucasians, were peremptorily stricken by the State. However, this record does not reveal whether that number was disproportionate to the racial composition of the venire. The exercise of seven peremptory strikes on African-Americans, standing alone, is insufficient for the Court to infer the fact at issue, i.e., purposeful discrimination. Issue 2: Use of prior conviction Strickland argues that the prejudicial effect of admitting his prior conviction for theft for impeachment purposes outweighed its probative value. Theft crimes are categorized under M.R.E. 609(a)(1). Factors the court should consider prior to admission include the impeachment value of the prior crime, the point in time of the conviction and the witness’ subsequent history, the similarity between the past crime and the charged crime, the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and the centrality of the credibility issue. M.R.E. 609(b) provides that evidence of a conviction under Rule 609(a) is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date. The date of conviction in CC-92-003257-00 is certain, i.e., March 5, 1993. However, release of the witness from confinement is indeterminable from the record. However, that issue is not outcome-determinative, as Rule 609(b) establishes an exception to the ten-year time limit if the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by the specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. Here, the circuit judge made such a determination. While Strickland’s conviction occurred more than ten years before trial, the “interest of justice” exception was available as a result of Strickland’s flight. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting Strickland’s conviction. Issue 3: Lesser-included offense instruction Strickland argues that the denial of his lesser-included offense instruction constituted reversible error because he was not acting in common purpose with another person in the armed robbery. A lesser-included offense instruction should not be indiscriminately granted, but rather should be submitted to the jury only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record. Participation in an armed robbery is sufficient to make one a principal in the crime regardless of whether that participant was the person holding the weapon. As the circuit court found, Strickland admitted to instructing the other person to take the cash box portion of the cash register after the pistol was threateningly displayed. Such participation rendered Strickland a principal in the armed robbery. As Strickland admitted to this involvement, there is no evidentiary basis in the record for the lesser-included offense instruction.


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