Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01639-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01639-SCT ; 2004-KA-01639-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2006 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted kidnapping - Sufficiency of evidence - Peremptory challenge - Motion for psychiatric evaluation - Photographic lineup Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-16-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING AND SENTENCED TEN YEARS IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B-2402-2003-201 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bruce Carter |
MELVIN G. COOPER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Attempted kidnapping - Sufficiency of evidence - Peremptory challenge - Motion for psychiatric evaluation - Photographic lineup |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bruce Carter was convicted of attempted kidnapping. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Carter argues that his conduct was not sufficient to prove the “overt act” element of attempt. According to the victim, Carter pulled up beside her while she was walking home. He began by repeatedly offering her a ride, and she declined each time. Carter then began to make lewd sexual advances. He asked her to engage in sexual relations with him, and she declined. Carter then parked his car, got out and chased the victim down the street. Carter eventually grabbed the victim’s arm. This evidence was sufficient to establish an overt act toward the commission of a crime, i.e., attempted kidnapping. Issue 2: Peremptory challenge Carter argues that the court should have granted his Batson challenge, based on racial discrimination, as to one of the jurors. The State’s race-neutral reason was that the juror knew the defense attorney as a community figure and had previously had contact with the defense attorney. Further, the State claimed that the juror had his eyes closed during half of the voir dire examination. The fact that a venireman knows or knows of the defense attorney can be considered as a race-neutral reason when coupled with other race-neutral reasons for the challenge. Inattentiveness, demeanor, sleeping during voir dire, lack of eye contact, educational level and hostility have all been held to be race neutral reasons. Thus, there is no error in the exclusion of this juror. Issue 3: Motion for psychiatric evaluation Carter argues that the court should have granted his motion for psychiatric evaluation. A defendant not competent to stand trial is one who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or does not have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Carter failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim that a mental examination was required. The simple fact that Carter was seeing a psychiatrist does not require that the trial court find that he was incapable of a rational defense or order a mental examination. Issue 4: Photographic lineup Carter argues that the lineup was improperly suggestive because his photo was the only picture where the man was wearing a red sweatshirt. The lower court must determine from the totality of the circumstances if the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure may have been suggestive. Here, each of the six photographs depict men who were black, wearing a red shirt, of approximately the same age, and had no identifying marks, numbers, or other characteristics. Thus, the identification process was not impermissibly suggestive. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
