London v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KP-01982-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KP-01982-COA ; 2009-CT-01982-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Photographic lineup - Habitual offender statute - Section 99-19-83 - Surveillance videos - URCCC 3.10 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Denied Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mario London |
PRO SE
JOHN D. WATSON |
||
| 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: | Grand larceny - Photographic lineup - Habitual offender statute - Section 99-19-83 - Surveillance videos - URCCC 3.10 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mario London was found guilty of grand larceny. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Photographic lineup A photographic lineup is impermissibly suggestive when the accused is conspicuously singled out in some manner from the others. Factors to be considered when determining whether a lineup was overly suggestive include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. London argues that the photographic lineup compiled by authorities and presented to a witness for identification was overly suggestive because London’s skin complexion and the other five persons’ skin complexion in the photospread were not similar. However, the skin tones of all the individuals depicted are very similar. The lineup provided one picture of an individual who is slightly darker-complected than London, and one who is slightly lighter-complected; and contrary to London’s argument, three others whose skin tones are almost identical to London’s. Accordingly, the photographic lineup was not suggestive. Additionally, the witness had a face-to-face encounter with London at Walmart for a credible amount of time; he remembered the encounter very accurately; he was asked to identify London less than a month after the encounter; and he positively identified London immediately from the photographic lineup. Issue 2: Habitual offender statute The record shows that the prosecution provided the circuit court with London’s conviction record. London had been previously convicted of eleven felonies in Tennessee, four of which were crimes of violence, and he had been sentenced to and served over a year or more on several of the convictions. Although the convictions were from Tennessee, section 99-19-83 provides that the state in which the conviction was received is inconsequential. Accordingly, the prosecution met its burden of proof, and the circuit court properly applied the habitual-offender statute. Also, sentences under the habitual-offender statute do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Issue 3: Surveillance videos London argues that it was improper for the circuit court to allow the jury to view the surveillance videos during deliberations when the videos were not played for the jury in their entirety during the trial. Pursuant to URCCC 3.10, the circuit court was required to allow the jury to view the videos during deliberations once the videos had been properly admitted into evidence. Issue 4: Weight of evidence London argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the computer was actually stolen. However, the prosecution presented two eyewitnesses to the incident, one of whom positively identified London in a photographic lineup, as well as two surveillance videos that show London entering Walmart, taking the computer, and immediately leaving the store without paying for it. Additionally, the record shows that when asked to show a receipt for the computer, London refused to produce one and instead fled the premises. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
