Moore v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-01375-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01375-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-05-2011
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of hydrocodone - Defense theory instruction - Prior conviction
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2009
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Charles E. Webster
Disposition: Convicted of Count I, Possession of Hydrocodone, and Sentenced to Sixteen Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, as a Habitual Offender Without Eligibility of Parole or Probation
District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen
Case Number: 2008-0140

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Jamar Amin Moore




IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN



 
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR.  

    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: Possession of hydrocodone - Defense theory instruction - Prior conviction

    Summary of the Facts: Jamar Moore was convicted of possession of hydrocodone and sentenced to sixteen years as a habitual offender. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instruction Moore argues that the trial court erred in denying his theory-of-the-case jury instruction. The trial court denied the instruction, finding it improperly commented on the evidence and presented a theory as a fact. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. The jury instruction Moore offered on his theory of the case did not include any type of defense; thus, the theory of his case is not relevant. Issue 2: Prior conviction Moore argues he was prejudiced by a mention of his prior criminal history and should have been granted a mistrial. The trial court has the discretion to determine whether the objectionable comment is so prejudicial that a mistrial should be declared. Here, the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the testimony and was given a written jury instruction to the same effect. Further, there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. The question was not stated to elicit an objectionable answer; instead, the witness volunteered the information. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore’s motion for a mistrial.


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