Outerbridge v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-01809-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01809-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-07-2006
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Identification - Improper bolstering - Golden rule argument
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Bobby DeLaughter
Disposition: Conviction of Armed Robbery and Sentence of Thirty (30) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with Fifteen (15) Years to serve, Fifteen (15) Years Suspended and Five (5) Years of Supervised Probation
District Attorney: ELEANOR JOHNSON PETERSON
Case Number: 03-0-653BBD

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Daniel Outerbridge a/k/a Daniel Nian Outerbridge




GEORGE T. HOLMES



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Identification - Improper bolstering - Golden rule argument

Summary of the Facts: Daniel Outerbridge was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years, with fifteen years suspended. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Identification Outerbridge argues that the court erred in allowing the State to present the victim’s pre-trial identification, because the show-up was unjustifiably suggestive and because the individuals in the photo lineup were too indistinguishable from Outerbridge. Factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Despite the suggestiveness of the show-up in this case, the victim’s identification is still admissible because there is factual evidence which overcomes the likelihood of misidentification. Outerbridge was at arms’ length to the victim while standing face-to-face with him for a period of three to five minutes. The victim had every opportunity to pay close and undivided attention to Outerbridge during the robbery, as evidenced by the level of accuracy with which he was able to describe Outerbridge to the police. The victim expressed 100 per cent certainty that Outerbridge was the gunman. Less than 24 hours transpired between the robbery and photo lineup. There is no doubt that the assailant’s image was fresh on the victim’s mind when he identified Outerbridge. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. With regard to Outerbridge’s other argument, it is in the best interest of the accused that the other individuals in the photo lineup have similar characteristics as it ensures that an identification is made by someone familiar with the accused. Issue 2: Improper bolstering Outerbridge argues that the court erred in allowing an officer to testify, over objection, as to details of the crime and Outerbridge’s physical description. The officer’s testimony did not go to the truth of the matter asserted but rather explained why the officer acted the way he did. Statements taken by the officer from the victim explained why the officer alerted other officers to look for an individual matching Outerbridge’s description. Those statements were not intended to prove that Outerbridge committed the crime. The trial judge even instructed the jury sua sponte of the limited purpose for using such statements, thereby dispelling any inappropriate or inadvertent use of that testimony. Issue 3: Golden rule argument Outerbridge argues that during closing argument the State improperly asked the jury to put themselves in the victim’s place, thus violating the golden rule argument prohibition. Attorneys should not tell a jury, in effect, that the law authorizes it to depart from neutrality and to make its determination from the point of view of bias or personal interest. Even when a prosecutor has made an impermissible comment, a showing of prejudice is required to warrant reversal. In this case, the prosecutor’s comment, when taken in context, did not ask the jurors to put themselves in the victim’s place to determine Outerbridge’s guilt. Rather the comment urged them to believe the victim’s identification.


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