Carpenter v. State
Docket Number: | 2003-KA-02609-SCT | |
Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-17-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of business - Prejudicial testimony - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-07-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Case Number: 02-0-995 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Vernell Carpenter |
|||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi |
|
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: | Burglary of business - Prejudicial testimony - Closing argument |
Summary of the Facts: | Vernell Carpenter was convicted of burglary of a business and sentenced to seven years. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Carpenter argues that the court erred by allowing testimony of the arresting officer after granting Carpenter’s motion to suppress when the court found that Carpenter’s constitutional rights were violated because the officer questioned Carpenter before advising him of his Miranda rights. Carpenter argues that the court destroyed his chance of receiving a fair and impartial trial by refusing to allow his counsel to approach the bench and by failing to admonish the jury after the inadmissible statement was heard by the jury. The court was correct in granting the motion to suppress concerning Carpenter’s statement that he and his friend broke into the business. Therefore, the identification by the officer was unquestionably prejudicial. There was no physical evidence linking Carpenter to the burglary. However, there was physical evidence connecting Carpenter’s friend to the crime. The State was unable to establish any connection between Carpenter and his friend, except through inadmissible testimony. Although defense counsel was examining the witness, he did not invite the testimony and in fact, tried to prevent it. Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to stop the testimony, refusal to uphold its prior ruling, failure to grant a mistrial, and failure to admonish the jury to disregard any of the statements amount to an abuse of discretion. Carpenter also argues that it was error to allow the prosecutor to argue to the jury in closing argument the very point the trial court had already deemed inadmissible. The prosecutor’s reference in closing argument to the identification simply amplified the error and its prejudicial effect. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court