Roche v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00383-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-14-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Commercial burglary - Identification - Illegal search - Jury panel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2004 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: Convicted Roche of commercial burglary and sentenced Roche as a habitual offender to seven years in prison without eligibility for parole. District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: K2003-306P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James T. Roche |
JOHN A. HOWELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Commercial burglary - Identification - Illegal search - Jury panel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Roche was convicted of commercial burglary and was sentenced as an habitual offender to seven years in prison without eligibility for parole. Roche appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identification Roche argues that he was impermissibly identified by an officer in a “show-up” procedure at the Texaco. Pretrial identifications which are suggestive, without necessity for conducting them in such manner, are proscribed. There is support for Roche’s argument that it was impermissibly suggestive for the officers to use a show up procedure to assist in his identification. When the officer who was the only witness to the crime arrived at the Texaco, the police were questioning only one man, Roche. Roche wore the same type clothing the officer had seen the burglar wearing and stood next to a Lexus which was similar in color to the one the officer reported seeing the burglar driving. However, such identification is admissible if, considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the identification procedure, the identification did not give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Here, the officer viewed the burglar from approximately 100 yards away at a very early hour of the morning. As a result of being warned by his training officer, the officer was already vigilant about criminal activity going on in his neighborhood during late hours. The officer’s prior description was fairly accurate. The officer identified Roche as having the same height and build of the man he saw outside the Sunflower. The officer identified Roche approximately an hour and a half after witnessing the burglary. Given this evidence, Roche has not met his very heavy burden of showing the conduct gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Issue 2: Illegal search Roche argues the court erred in failing to suppress evidence collected during the search of his vehicle. When probable cause justifies the search of vehicle which police have lawfully stopped, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. The facts at hand justified issuance of a warrant to search Roche’s vehicle. The car was readily mobile, and probable cause existed to believe it contained contraband; therefore, the Fourth Amendment permitted the officers to search the vehicle without a warrant. Issue 3: Jury panel Roche argues that the court erred in refusing to strike the entire jury panel and declare a mistrial, when several jurors indicated affirmatively that Roche’s prior convictions would have an influence on whether they perceived him to be less believable. Roche is procedurally barred from raising this issue, because he did not request a mistrial and because he failed to cite to supporting authority. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Roche challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In the early morning hours, an officer saw a black man with the same build as Roche, who, like Roche, was driving a Lexus, wearing a black outfit (including a black cap), and carrying a black jacket. The man (1) broke and entered; (2) at night; (3) the Sunflower store; and (4) stole change from the register tills. Shortly after the Sunflower break-in, officers stopped Roche and discovered $0.03 in pennies, $7.20 in nickels, $9.10 in dimes, and $11.50 in quarters. In light of these facts, any rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the elements had been met by the State in proving Roche committed the crime of commercial burglary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
