Foster v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00964-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-02-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Attempted aggravated assault - Sufficiency of evidence - Rebuttal witness Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-15-2004 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: Appellant was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery and attempted aggravated assault. The trial court denied Foster’s motion for judgment non obstante verdicto or alternatively for a new trial. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2003-0061 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anton Foster |
RICHARD B. LEWIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE McCRORY |
|
|
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: | Armed robbery & Attempted aggravated assault - Sufficiency of evidence - Rebuttal witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anton Foster was convicted and sentenced for Count I armed robbery and Count II attempted aggravated assault. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence The State proved the elements of armed robbery and attempted aggravated assault against Foster. In his testimony, the victim identified Foster as the individual that robbed him at gunpoint and fired at him shooting his car several times with him inside the car. He testified that he on two occasions that evening had given Foster a ride. The victim did not know Foster’s name, but he identified him from a lineup. Issue 2: Rebuttal witness Foster argues that the court erred in allowing an officer to testify as a witness in rebuttal, because the jury was not voir dired on the officer since the State informed the court that the officer was absolutely not expected to testify. However, the State did not anticipate that two witnesses would make accusations that the officer had made improper inducements. When the State questioned the officer on rebuttal, the questioning was limited to only any deals that she allegedly made. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
