Irby v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01338-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-01338-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Destruction of evidence - Voir dire - Cautionary instruction - Admission of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, 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: 05-23-2003 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: Appellant was convicted of selling cocaine and sentenced to sixty years in prison. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 077-03 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Jerome Irby a/k/a James J. Irby a/k/a "Mike" |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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: | Sale of cocaine - Destruction of evidence - Voir dire - Cautionary instruction - Admission of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Irby was convicted and sentenced to sixty years in prison for selling cocaine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Destruction of evidence Irby argues that he was denied due process as a result of missing audio and video tapes. In determining whether the evidence would have played a significant role in the defendant's case, the exculpatory nature and value of the evidence must have been apparent before the evidence was lost and the defendant must have no way of obtaining comparable evidence by any other means. Here, the missing tapes would not have played a significant role in providing valuable exculpatory evidence for Irby's defense. In addition, the fundamentally important evidence that was lost with the tapes was recovered by the testimony of the officers, as well as Irby's own admission that he negotiated the deal and delivered the cocaine. Issue 2: Voir dire Irby argues that the prosecutor inappropriately exacted a promise from the jury. Irby is procedurally barred from raising this issue, because he did not object. Issue 3: Cautionary instruction Irby argues that it was error for an instruction to be given to caution the jury that it should disregard the criminal history of the confidential informant, other than for impeachment purposes. Generally, when a jury instruction is offered at trial, it is the duty of the opposing party, in order to preserve the point for appeal, to state a contemporaneous objection in specific terms. Irby's objection to the instruction was ineffective to preserve the issue for appeal. The objection lacked the specificity required to preserve the issue for appeal. Issue 4: Admission of evidence Irby argues that the disclosure to the jury that he was a big drug dealer, the confidential informant’s revelation that Irby had sold him drugs before, and the absence of the surveillance tapes was highly prejudicial. His defense of entrapment eviscerates this assignment of error of any validity. When entrapment is pled as a defense, evidence of predisposition is always relevant and therefore admissible. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Irby argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Irby has not demonstrated that his attorney's conduct was deficient, that it resulted in prejudice, or that the attorney acted unreasonably considering the circumstances of his client's case. Irby merely alleges general claims of deficiency based on tactical decisions made by his trial counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
