Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01589-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-05-2007 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted burglary of dwelling - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2005 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of attempted burglary of a dwelling and sentenced, as a habitual offender, to serve a term of twenty-five (25) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2003-0177-CR |
|
| Note: | Motion for Supplemental Brief filed pro se by appellant is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ricky Carter a/k/a Rickie Carter |
PEARSON LIDDELL, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Attempted burglary of dwelling - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ricky Carter was convicted of attempted burglary of a dwelling and sentenced, as a habitual offender, to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior convictions Carter argues that prior convictions are inherently prejudicial and, therefore, the trial court should not have allowed the admission of his prior convictions because their probative value was far outweighed by the unfair prejudice standard. In admitting Carter’s prior felony convictions into evidence, the circuit court was careful to limit the scope of that admission as the intent of Carter is an issue. Admitting such evidence for the purpose of showing intent is permissible under M.R.E. 404(b). Furthermore, in its M.R.E. 403 analysis, the trial court found that because the evidence was extremely probative of Carter’s intent, that outweighs the prejudicial effect in this case. Carter’s intent was a necessary element for his conviction, and his prior felony convictions were admitted for limited purposes, permissible under Rule 404(b), including intent. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Carter’s prior felony convictions into evidence. Issue 2: Jury instruction Carter argues that the court erred in giving a jury instruction that evidence of other crimes of the defendant is not admissible to prove the character of the defendant in order to show that he acted in conformity with that character but is admissible for the purpose of showing the motive or intent of the defendant. He argues that there was no mention of this evidence being admitted for the purpose of motive until the prosecution submitted its jury instructions. The jury instruction is a correct statement of the law, as evidence of Carter’s prior felony convictions was not admissible to prove Carter’s character in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith, but was admissible to show Carter’s intent or motive under M.R.E. 404(b). Prior to admission of the prior convictions for the purpose of showing intent, the State did not offer a separate argument that the evidence was also admissible to prove motive. Thus, the circuit court was not called upon to make a separate M.R.E. 403 finding. As the trial court had already made a Rule 403 analysis, and admitted the evidence, it cannot be fairly argued that Carter was prejudiced by the circuit court’s silence to support the additional exception granted by the very same evidentiary rule. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
