Cooper v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00924-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00924-COA ; 2009-CT-00924-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-26-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: False pretenses - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-04-2009 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: Convicted of False Pretenses and Sentenced as a Habitual Offender to Life in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without Eligibilty for Parole of Probation Case Number: CR-2008-18-D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Manual Cooper a/k/a Manuel Cooper |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
||
| 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: | False pretenses - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Manual Cooper was convicted of false pretenses and sentenced as a habitual offender to life without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Cooper argues that the State failed to prove that Cooper intended to cheat or defraud the alleged victim. In a false-pretenses case, the State must prove that the pretenses were false, that the appellant knew them to be false, and that the pretenses were the moving cause by which the money was obtained. The property or money obtained under false pretenses is required to be to the detriment or injury of the person from whom he obtains the same. When considering the facts in the present case in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence existed in this record for the jury to convict Cooper of false pretenses. The jury heard testimony from the victim that Cooper offered to clean her gutters on her house for approximately two hundred dollars. She testified that no agreement concerning the cleaning or repairing of the house’s vinyl siding existed and that neither party even mentioned the siding of her house at any time on the day in question, but reflected instead an agreement pertaining to cleaning the gutters on her house. She testified that Cooper told her that he and his crew were “through” with their work and demanded $2,000, which she subsequently paid. The State also presented evidence to the jury through the testimony of the criminal investigator in this case, and through photographs of the gutters on the victim’s house, that the gutters appeared uncleaned. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence through the victim’s testimony for the jury to conclude that when Cooper communicated to her that he was “through” with the work, he was representing completion of the work of cleaning and repairing the gutters on her house. Issue 2: Hearsay Cooper argues that the trial court erred in allowing an officer to testify as to the statements made to him by Baker regarding the events that occurred. Under M.R.E. 801(c), hearsay is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter and is generally not admissible at trial. Under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B), a statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. In the present case, at the time the State introduced the statements of which Cooper complains at trial, the victim declarant had already testified at trial to the events that occurred on the day in question. She had also already testified that she told the officer about these events when he investigated her case later that same day. The defense then cross-examined the victim. The defense attempted to imply that the victim only contacted the authorities due to her dissatisfaction with the amount that she agreed to pay Cooper. In addition, the defense implied that the victim’s son improperly influenced her to contact the authorities concerning the event at issue. The purpose of allowing the statements made to the officer by the victim was to rebut the implications made by the defense. Thus, the State satisfied each of the prerequisites of Rule 801(d)(1)(B). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
