Humphrey, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01656-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-15-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Robbery & Conspiracy - Sufficiency of evidence - Comment by judge Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-16-2010 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: ODESSIA HUMPHREY WAS CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS, WITH TEN YEARS TO SERVE, FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST - RELEASE SUPERVISION; AND COUNT II, CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO PAY A $5,000 FINE, $1,050 IN RESTITUTION TO JESSE MAXWELL, AND $250 TO THE CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND MICHAEL C . BLUE WAS CONVICTED OF TO SERVE FIFTEEN YEARS; AND COUNT II, CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST - RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO PAY A $5,000 FINE, $1,050 IN RESTITUTION TO JESSE MAXWELL, AND $250 TO THE CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 10-010-LS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Odessia Humphrey a/k/a Odessa Humphries and Michael C. Blue |
BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER
DEBRA MICHELLE GILES |
||
| 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: | Robbery & Conspiracy - Sufficiency of evidence - Comment by judge |
| Summary of the Facts: | Odessia Humphrey and Michael Blue were convicted of Count I, robbery, and Count II, conspiracy. In regard to the robbery count, Humphrey was sentenced to fifteen years, with ten years to serve, five years suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. In regard to the conspiracy charge, Humphrey was sentenced to five years, with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. In regard to the robbery count, Blue was sentenced to serve fifteen years. In regard to the conspiracy count, Blue was sentenced to five years, with the full sentence suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Humphrey and Blue filed separate appeals in which two of their issues are similar. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Blue argues that he was merely defending Humphrey’s honor and did not rob the victim of his money or cellular phone. However, it is well established that any person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an ‘aider and abettor’ and is equally guilty with the principal offender. The jury believed that Blue subdued the victim so Humphrey could rob him, and there was sufficient evidence to support this belief. The jury could infer from the circumstances that Blue and Humphrey were planning something nefarious. Humphrey only challenges her robbery conviction. She argues that there was no physical evidence connecting her to the robbery. However, the victim recognized Humphrey and specifically stated that she took his money and his cellular phone. Issue 2: Comment by judge Blue argues that the trial judge committed error in commenting to the jury that a witness had been subpoenaed by the State and failed to appear. The witness had been referred to during various testimony as the other woman in the car that night with Blue and Humphrey. The trial judge found that it would be disingenuous for Blue and Humphrey, knowing that the witness had failed to appear, to state in their closing arguments that the State should have produced the witness in order to testify as to what happened that night. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the motion for a mistrial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
