Gray v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00256-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00256-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Business burglary - Prior convictions - URCCC 9.04 (A)(3) - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-12-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: CONVICTION OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 01-1-559 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Flavian L. Gray |
FRANK CASWELL JONES, THOMAS M. FORTNER, LYNN WATKINS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Prior convictions - URCCC 9.04 (A)(3) - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Flavian Gray was convicted of business burglary. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior convictions Gray argues that his prior convictions were improperly admitted because the State had not disclosed the fact that it intended to use Gray's prior conviction record to impeach Gray. Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 9.04 (A)(3) requires that the prosecution give the defendant a copy of the defendant's criminal record, if the prosecution proposes to use the record to impeach. By failing to provide Gray or his attorneys with copies of his false pretenses convictions, the State was in violation of Rule 9.04. However, a violation of Rule 9.04 is considered harmless error unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the violation caused a miscarriage of justice. No miscarriage of justice occurred in the present case. Even without the introduction of his prior convictions, Gray's conflicting statements severely impaired Gray’s credibility with the jury. Issue 2: Hearsay Gray argues that the court displayed favoritism towards the prosecution by overruling his attorney’s objections to hearsay, while sustaining several objections by the prosecution. According to M.R.E. 801(c), hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial, that is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Gray's angry statements to another person were not offered for their truth, but to show the circumstances attending Gray's confrontation by the other person and the officer. Therefore, the statements were not hearsay. Gray also argues that the court erred in sustaining the prosecution's hearsay objections. The circuit court properly sustained each of the State’s objections. Each of the instances Gray cites was offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and constituted hearsay. Gray did not point out any applicable hearsay exceptions to the circuit court, nor does he on appeal. Issue 3: Lesser included offense instruction Gray argues that the court erred in refusing a jury instruction that would have allowed the jury to convict him of trespass, which is a lesser included offense of burglary. A lesser-included offense instruction should be refused cases where the evidence could only justify a conviction of the principal charge. There was no evidence that would have allowed a rational jury to convict Gray of trespass rather than burglary. If the jury accepted Gray's version of events, it would have believed that Gray never entered someone's property and had not committed trespass. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Gray argues that the State failed to show that he entered Security Storage with the intent to commit a felony and that his actions were inconsistent with those of a person seeking to burglarize property. The testimony of a witness sufficiently established the elements necessary to convict Gray of business burglary. The weight and credibility of her testimony was a matter properly resolved by the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
