Boone v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02525-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-02525-COA ; 2004-CT-02525-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-28-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder during commission of robbery - Right to speedy trial - Two-theory instruction - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2004 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: CONVICTION OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: ANTHONY N. LAWRENCE, III Case Number: 2003-10,661(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Henry Lonzo Boone, III |
BERNARD GAUTIER |
||
| 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 during commission of robbery - Right to speedy trial - Two-theory instruction - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry Boone, III was convicted of capital murder during the commission of a robbery. He was sentenced to life, without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Boone argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial. Factors to be considered include length of delay, reason for the delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and any prejudice to the defendant. The delay from Boone’s arrest to his trial of approximately 522 days is presumptively prejudicial. The overwhelming majority of the delay was a result of neglect on the part of the State Crime Lab in failing to timely process the physical evidence. Such delay is neutral and does not weigh in favor of either party. Although Boone filed a motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial, a demand for dismissal is not the equivalent of a demand for speedy trial. Boone did not make a demand for a speedy trial until less than three weeks before the trial was scheduled to commence. There is no evidence of any actual prejudice suffered by Boone from the delay. Given the totality of the circumstances, Boone’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Issue 2: Two-theory instruction Boone argues that the court erred in refusing to provide the jury with his proposed “two-theory” instruction. No per se “two-theory” instruction was given to Boone’s jury. However, when read as a whole, the instructions given to the jury accurately state the law and fairly cover the content of a proper “two-theory” instruction. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Boone argues that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The record shows that there was ample circumstantial evidence for the jury to convict Boone of capital murder. The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, indicate the a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis that Boone shot his father in the head and then fled the scene with his father’s revolver and in his father’s car. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Boone argues that his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. The failure to file a motion demanding a speedy trial cannot be said to have affected the outcome of the trial because the evidence obtained by the delay was arguably exculpatory. Also, decisions to call witnesses, ask certain questions, or make particular objections fall within the purview of the attorney’s trial strategy and cannot give rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As to the failure to submit a proper “two-party instruction,” the instruction complained of is legally sufficient. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
