Minter v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-00922-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00922-COA ; 2009-CT-00922-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-11-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder & Robbery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(6) - Limitation on use of statement - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-25-2008
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: Lisa P. Dodson
Disposition: Convicted of Capital Murder in Counts I and II and Sentenced to Life in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the Possibility of Parole or Early Release, with the Sentence in Count II to Run Concurrently with the Sentence in Count I, and Convicted of Robbery in Count VIII and Sentenced to Fifteen Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, to Run Consecutively to the Sentences in Counts I and II.
District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II
Case Number: B2401-07-00648

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Larry Tyrese Minter




GEORGE T. HOLMES



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: Capital murder & Robbery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(6) - Limitation on use of statement - Weight of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Larry Minter was convicted of two counts of capital murder and one count of robbery. The circuit court sentenced Minter to two life sentences without the possibility of parole or early release, for the capital murders and to fifteen years for the robbery. Minter appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Hearsay Minter argues that a detective’s testimony regarding a .380-caliber pistol was improper. The detective testified that the pistol was recovered from a creek, which had been searched because Minter’s accomplices had told the police that Minter threw the victim’s pistol in the creek. Minter argues that the detective’s testimony about the ownership of the pistol constituted impermissible hearsay. There is no doubt that the best evidence of what the State sought to prove was the actual trace run by the ATF. Ideally, the documents should have been introduced into evidence rather than paraphrased by the detective. The contents of such a trace are generally admissible under M.R.E. 803(6). Because the contents of the trace were most likely admissible, any error in allowing the detective to testify regarding the result of the trace was harmless. Minter also argues that the testimony violated Minter’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the evidence against him. To violate Minter’s right of confrontation, the hearsay evidence must have been testimonial in nature. A statement is testimonial when it is given to the police or individuals working in connection with the police for the purpose of prosecuting the accused. Here, the firearms-trace report here was not made for the purpose of prosecuting Minter; rather, it was produced by the ATF to establish the ownership of the pistol that was recovered. The ATF was not attempting to prosecute Minter when it produced the trace report, nor was the report the product of prior testimony or police interrogation. Issue 2: Limitation on use of statement Minter argues that his right to confront the evidence against him was improperly impinged upon by the circuit court’s limitation of Minter’s use of a statement signed by Green. During questioning outside the presence of the jury, Green stated that he did not write the affidavit; when asked whether he had read it before signing it, he first stated that he had “scanned” it and then stated that he “didn’t even read it.” Green admitted that he read the second paragraph quoted above before signing the statement. The circuit court ruled that Minter would be allowed to use only the second paragraph at trial. The circuit court should not have limited Minter’s use of the statement to the second paragraph above; rather, Minter should have been allowed to question Green about the entirety of the statement. However, the second paragraph clearly alluded to Minter’s innocence. Therefore, there was no prejudicial error requiring reversal. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Minter argues that the overwhelming weight of the evidence does not support his convictions. Minter points to the inconsistencies in Murphy’s and Green’s testimonies, as well as to the fact that both Murphy and Green had taken plea bargains from the State. Minter also notes that Green stated during his testimony that he had lied about parts of his testimony. In addition to attacking the testimonies of his accomplices, Minter complains about the Gulfport Police Department’s investigation of the crime. The jury heard the inconsistencies in the testimonies. The jury also heard Green’s admission that he had lied; the jury knew that both Green and Murphy had accepted plea bargains in return for testifying against Minter. While the police investigation in this case was not perfect, it was adequate. It is well established that the jury is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, allowing Minter’s convictions to stand does not sanction an unconscionable injustice.


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