Roberts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01707-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01707-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-17-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary - Voluntariness of statements - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-29-2008 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF AN OCCUPIED DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, TWENTY YEARS TO SERVE, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 07-259-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Eric Lavon Roberts |
VATERRIA MCQUITTER MARTIN |
|
|
| 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 - Voluntariness of statements - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eric Roberts was convicted of burglary. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of statements Roberts argues that his statements to the officer were involuntary because he was subject to custodial interrogation without proper Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are needed once the suspect is subject to custodial interrogation. To be subject to custodial interrogation, the suspect must be both in custody and undergoing interrogation. A suspect is in custody when his right to freely leave has been restricted. The accused is subject to interrogation when he is questioned by the police or the functional equivalent. Roberts was not subject to custodial interrogation or the functional equivalent. Instead, Roberts actively sought the officer’s attention by knocking on the window. Roberts made the statements without the officer asking him a question. Because his statements were not the product of custodial interrogation and were made voluntarily, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Roberts’s statements. Roberts also argues that his statements to a detective at the police station were involuntary and that they should have been suppressed because he was intoxicated; the detective threatened him; and the detective failed to record his statements with a video camera or audio recorder. Both the officer and the detective testified that: Roberts did not smell of alcohol; he was coherent; and he appeared sober when he gave his statements. Also, the trial court concluded that Roberts testified clearly about the night’s events and that the defense offered no proof about Roberts being drunk, except through Roberts’s unsubstantiated testimony. The officer and detective each read Roberts his Miranda rights. Roberts signed a waiver of his Miranda rights, and in his own handwriting, Roberts wrote his statement. Roberts offered only assertions and no evidence showing that he was threatened. With regard to recording his statements, the use of such equipment is not presently required under Mississippi law. Issue 2: Closing argument Roberts argues that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper because he commented on Roberts’s failure to testify. A prosecutor may not, even indirectly, comment adversely on the defendant's failure to testify in his own defense. However, adverse comments on the defendant's failure to present any defense at all are not a prohibited form of argument to the jury. Here, the prosecutor’s comments on Roberts’s failure to provide any evidence to contradict the prosecution’s evidence were not prohibited. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Roberts argues that there was no direct evidence showing that Roberts had the intent to commit a crime inside the victim’s apartment. The breaking and entering was proven through the three girls’ testimonies. Roberts was caught inside the apartment. All three girls testified that: none of them went to the party that Roberts claimed to have been at; the doors were closed before they went to bed; they were the only people in the apartment before they went to bed; no one invited anyone else to stay; and no one knew Roberts. Nevertheless, since no item of value from the apartment was found on Roberts, he argues that the State failed to prove intent. Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence. In light of the witnesses’ testimonies and evidence presented, the logical inference is that Roberts entered the apartment with the intent to steal. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Roberts argues that his counsel was ineffective due to his failure to present evidence during trial of Roberts’s mental illness. The decision of whether or not to use defendant’s medical history as part of the defense falls under the ambit of trial strategy. Further, Roberts has not proven that the outcome of the trial was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to introduce evidence of his insanity, especially in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence against him. Thus, the record is insufficient to affirmatively show ineffective assistance of counsel of constitutional dimensions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
