Cridiso v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00413-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00413-SCT ; 2004-KA-00413-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-10-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Business burglary - Amendment of indictment - Spoliation - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2004 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF ONE COUNT OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A NONVIOLENT HABITUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EARLY RELEASE OR PAROLE. District Attorney: JON MARK WEATHERS Case Number: 04-069-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joseph Michael Cridiso |
JONATHAN MICHAEL FARRIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Business burglary - Amendment of indictment - Spoliation - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Cridiso was convicted of one count of business burglary and was sentenced to seven years without the possibility of any form of early release or parole, as a nonviolent habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Cridiso argues that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment. In general, a trial court can only grant amendments of form to an indictment, not amendments of substance. In the present case, the amendment granted by the trial court was an amendment of form and not an amendment of substance. The original indictment in the case alleged that Cridiso had burglarized a store in Hattiesburg. In reality, the store was located in Petal. There is no indication that Cridiso was confused as to the location of the alleged crime. Nothing was presented to indicate that Cridiso had a defense prepared that was no longer available to him after the amendment of the indictment. Thus, the court did not err in declining to quash the indictment and in granting the State’s amendment to the indictment to reflect the proper location of the burglary. Issue 2: Spoliation Cridiso argues that he is entitled to a new trial because of the State’s spoliation of evidence that would have aided his defense. A defendant is entitled to a new trial because of lost or destroyed evidence only if the evidence would have played a significant role in the defendant’s case and the defendant had no way of obtaining comparable evidence by other means. Although the evidence in this case was intentionally destroyed, no evidence whatsoever was produced to indicate that the destruction was fraudulent or stemmed from a desire to suppress the truth. The destruction was a routine decision, made with no discernible fraudulent intent. Therefore, no inference arises that the material was exculpatory. Issue 3: Admission of evidence Cridiso argues that the court erred in denying his motion in limine seeking to prevent the admission of the cigarette carton evidence. In order for a court to grant a motion in limine, the court should consider whether the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence, and whether the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury. The cartons were clearly relevant to Cridiso’s burglary of the store, because the primary items taken were the dozens of cartons of cigarettes. The presence of the cartons in Cridiso’s vehicle certainly made it more probable than not that Cridiso had burglarized the Fuelmart. Therefore, M.R.E. 401 and 402 do not provide any grounds for granting the motion in limine. The evidence was highly probative of Cridiso’s burglary of the Fuelmart and posed little risk of prejudice, confusion, or delay. Therefore, M.R.E. 403 did not provide a ground for granting the motion in limine. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Although this case is built solely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence was still sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Cridiso guilty of burglary. First, Cridiso was found in the proximity of the Fuelmart. Second, Cridiso was found near the Fuelmart shortly after the burglary was discovered. Third, both Cridiso and his wife were covered in white dust when they were stopped. Several individuals testified that the white dust appeared to be identical to the dust found inside the store. Fourth, tools that could have been used to break into the Fuelmart were found with Cridiso in the vehicle, covered in the same white dust as Cridiso and his wife. Fifth, pieces of debris appearing to match the debris in the store were found in the plastic bags with the cartons of cigarettes in Cridiso’s vehicle. Sixth, over ninety cartons of cigarettes were found in Cridiso’s vehicle. These cartons matched nearly exactly the inventory taken from the Fuelmart. Seventh, the promotional cartons that the Fuelmart marked with “seven” were found intermingled with the other cartons recovered from Cridiso’s vehicle. The cartons were found in plastic bags that the clerk testified were identical to the garbage bags in her store. These facts, while all circumstantial, are more than sufficient together for a reasonable jury to have found Cridiso guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
