Mann v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01018-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01018-SCT ; 2003-KA-01018-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of business - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: BURGLARY- BUSINESS, MISS. CODE ANN. 97-17-33: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Case Number: 02-1-035 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eroll Mann a/k/a Erroll Todd Mann |
THOMAS M. FORTNER
LYNN WATKINS
BRENDA GALE JACKSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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: | Burglary of business - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eroll Mann was convicted of burglary of a business. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to seven years without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Mann argues that the State failed to prove all elements of the charge of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the evidence presented to the jury, Mann was stopped for driving with a burned-out headlight. The police officers noticed a large quantity of containers of motor oil and gasoline additive in the bed of his truck. Mann denied ownership of the items, claiming they belonged to his passenger. However, the passenger also denied ownership of the items. Mann and his passenger had large quantities of broken glass on their clothing, and Southern Auto Supply, located two blocks away from where Mann was stopped, had been broken into and the store’s owner identified the items recovered from Mann's vehicle as inventory from his store. Considering all of the facts and circumstances, it was a logical inference for the jury to find that Mann had committed a breaking and entering of a store with the intent to steal. Issue 2: Prejudicial conduct Mann argues that the State engaged in prejudicial conduct that denied him a fair trial. He first complains of a question asked by the prosecutor during voir dire. However, Mann's objection was sustained with an instruction to disregard the statement and therefore, no error resulted from the prosecutor's question. He also complains of another question asked by the prosecutor during voir dire. Because he requested neither an admonishment to the jury nor a mistrial, he cannot claim error. Mann finally complains of remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument. However, he failed to preserve any issue for review on appeal by failing to specify a ground for his objection. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
