Bruce v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01748-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-01-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Drive-by shooting - Other crimes' evidence - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Photographs - Prior statement - Character witness - M.R.E. 404(a) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-10-2008 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF DRIVEBY SHOOTING AND SENTENCED TO TWELVE YEARS FOR EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell Case Number: 2006-0034 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Archie Bruce |
CHERYL ANN WEBSTER |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, JR. | ||
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: | Drive-by shooting - Other crimes' evidence - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 404(b) - Photographs - Prior statement - Character witness - M.R.E. 404(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Archie Bruce was found guilty of two counts of drive-by shooting. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of evidence Bruce argues that evidence of the car wreck and photographs of a broken windshield were not relevant and that the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value, violating M.R.E. 403. He also argues that the car wreck was evidence of other crimes or bad acts under M.R.E. 404(b). Even though it may reveal other crimes, evidence or testimony may be given in order to tell a rational and coherent story of what happened and where it is substantially necessary to present a complete story. Evidence of another crime is also admissible if it sheds light upon the motive or if it forms a part of a chain of facts intimately connected so that in order to interpret its general parts, the whole must be heard. The trial court found that the wreck was part of the continuous transaction of events that took place and that allowing evidence of the car wreck did not cause undue prejudice. The trial court weighed the probative value of this evidence against the potential for undue prejudice and did not abuse its discretion. Issue 2: Photographs Bruce argues that the admission of the photographs of the bullet holes caused him undue prejudice and denied him a fair trial, because there is no proof that the bullet holes came from his gun on that night. The photographs at issue were of the bullet holes on the outside in the front driver’s door. Generally, if the photographs are used to supplement a witness’s testimony, the photographs have probative value. Here, the photographs corroborated the victim’s testimony which was that Bruce fired gunshots at him. Issue 3: Prior statement At trial, Bruce’s counsel asked the court to exclude Bruce’s prior statement to an officer because it was incomplete. The mere fact that Bruce disputes the content of the statement is not a sufficient basis to exclude it. Rather, the Court must determine if there was credible proof that such a statement was made. If so, the statement is admissible. From the record, there was sufficient support for the trial court’s conclusion that the statement was, in fact, complete and voluntary. Bruce had the opportunity to change his statement when he read it. However, Bruce read it, made no changes, and signed the statement. Issue 4: Character witness The trial court excluded Bruce’s grandmother’s testimony as to his reputation. Character evidence is admissible under M.R.E. 404(a) if it is evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused. Evidence is limited to testimony about the defendant’s general reputation. Accordingly, the trial court could have admitted the grandmother’s testimony as to Bruce’s reputation. However, any error in the trial court’s excluding Bruce’s grandmother's statement into evidence was harmless when compared to the overwhelming evidence of guilt contained elsewhere in the record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
