Armon v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01637-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01637-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-06-2011 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Motion to suppress - Right to counsel - Sufficiency of evidence - Two-theory instruction - Closing arguments Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Robert Shuler Smith Case Number: 08-0-113 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mark Anthony Armon |
JOHN M. COLETTE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD, SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Murder - Motion to suppress - Right to counsel - Sufficiency of evidence - Two-theory instruction - Closing arguments |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mark Armon was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Armon argues that the statement given during the second interrogation was not voluntarily given and that it was given in violation of his right to counsel. The State holds the burden of proving that Armon’s confession was voluntary. A prima facie case of voluntariness may be established through testimony from officers or those who may have specific knowledge of the facts that the confession was made without any threats, offers of reward, or coercion. In this case, the State’s burden was met with testimony from the JPD officers who were present during Armon’s interrogations. Detective Clinton advised Armon of his Miranda rights before the first interrogation and reminded him of his rights during the second interrogation. Detective Watkins witnessed both interrogations. Both testified that Armon was not coerced into giving a confession. Once an accused has requested counsel during the interrogation process, interrogation must cease, and the accused may not be questioned further without an attorney being present, unless the accused voluntarily initiates communication. A defendant’s request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous in order for an officer to stop questioning the suspect. The transcript from Armon’s second interview indicates that he acknowledged that Detective Clinton had Mirandized him prior to his first interview and that he understood his rights. Therefore, Armon’s contention that his statement was taken in violation of his right to counsel lacks merit. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Armon argues that the State failed to prove the elements of deliberate-design murder. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support depraved-heart murder on the basis that the State presented no evidence of a willful act that was likely to result in the victim’s death. Rational jurors could have concluded that Armon was guilty of deliberate-design murder or depraved-heart murder. Before Armon went with another person to meet the victim, Armon knew: the other person was angry with the victim; the other person intended to “straighten” the victim; and this “straightening” would involve a .45-caliber firearm. Despite knowing these facts, Armon agreed to go and also carried a loaded .223-caliber firearm with him. The projectile recovered from the victim came from a rifle. Thus, it was perfectly rational for the jury to conclude that Armon’s actions were imminently dangerous to others evincing a depraved heart and that his actions were done with the deliberate design to cause the victim’s death. Issue 2: Two-theory instruction Armon asserts the circuit court erred by granting the State’s jury instruction setting out two theories of murder. There was evidence from which the jury could conclude Armon was guilty of either deliberate-design murder or depraved-heart murder. Therefore, this issue lacks merit. Issue 3: Closing arguments Armon argues he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor’s statement – that Armon approached the victim – improperly alleged facts that were not in evidence. During closing arguments, an attorney may address the facts introduced in evidence, deductions and conclusions he may reasonably draw therefrom, and the application of the law to the facts. The prosecutor in this case stayed within these well-established boundaries. His statement was a reasonable inference based on the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
