Magee v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00463-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00463-COA ; 2010-CT-00463-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-31-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - DNA evidence - Search warrant - Canine evidence - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2010 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard III Disposition: Convicted of Count I, armed robbery, and sentenced to forty years, with ten years suspended, and Count II, kidnapping, and sentenced to thirty years, with the sentences to run consecutively, all in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K2009-136P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jay T. Magee |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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 - DNA evidence - Search warrant - Canine evidence - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jay Magee was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: DNA evidence Magee argues that the DNA collected from him should have been excluded because the warrant only authorized a search of the jail and not his person. He relies on the principle that probable cause to search a place cannot be imputed to a person who happens to be located in the same place at the time of the search. However, the affidavit contains independent, specific probable cause to obtain Magee’s DNA to determine whether his DNA matched the sample from an earlier crime. From his affidavit, it is clear that the officer sought a warrant to collect Magee’s DNA, not to search a jail cell. Even if the warrant was insufficient on its face, whether to exclude the DNA evidence from Magee’s trial is an entirely separate issue. The exclusionary rule should not be applied to suppress evidence if the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant. The sole issue is whether the officer reasonably believed that the search he conducted was authorized by a valid warrant. Typically, the mere existence of a warrant suffices to prove that an officer conducted a search in good faith and justifies application of the good faith exception. In this case, the officer believed the warrant authorized him to collect Magee’s DNA. Thus, he acted reasonably. Therefore, the circuit court properly admitted the DNA evidence under the good-faith exception. Issue 2: Canine evidence Magee argues that the court erred in admitting a detective’s testimony about his trained German Shepherd tracking a scent from both the truck and the car wash to the wooded area where the clothes and mask were found. The circuit court rightly focused on the dog’s qualifications to track scents and the detective’s training and certification as the dog’s handler. Magee attacks the canine’s reliability based on the detective’s testimony that he had only used the dog in ten investigations. But the detective also testified that the dog had been trained by the military. And when the sheriff’s department purchased the dog, both the dog and the detective went through a training and certification course. Each month, they officially train for eight hours. Magee argues for the first time on appeal that the dog was not qualified because there is no evidence in the record that he is a purebred. However, evidence of pedigree is not necessary to prove a tracking dog is qualified. Based on the evidence supporting the dog’s and the detective’s qualifications, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Magee argues the guilty verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Magee relies on conflicting testimony concerning the number of men who returned to the silver truck, the number of bank bags found in the back seat, and whether the gunmen were wearing bandanas or ski masks. The jury is responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it showed two men left Magee’s truck parked in front of a house an hour before the robbery. Two masked men robbed the Sonic at gunpoint and forced employees into the cooler. The two men then returned to the truck to find it locked, and then they fled into the woods. Police located discarded clothing, including a ski mask, in the woods, and found Magee unclothed at a nearby car wash. Police discovered in the truck a green bank bag with “Sonic” written on it, Magee’s ID, and a pistol. And the police linked the ski mask to Magee’s DNA profile. The evidence of Magee’s guilt is overwhelming. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
