Crimm v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-00185-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-00185-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-21-2004
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Embezzlement - Right to speedy trial - Suppression of statement - Two-theory instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-17-2003
Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court
Judge: Marcus D. Gordon
Disposition: CONVICTION OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THREE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF PROBATION; RESTITUTION OF $3,300 AND FINE OF $1,500.
District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan
Case Number: 02-CR-096-LE-G

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Gerald Crimm




EDMUND J. PHILLIPS



 

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: Embezzlement - Right to speedy trial - Suppression of statement - Two-theory instruction

Summary of the Facts: Gerald Crimm was convicted of embezzlement and was sentenced to five years, with three years suspended. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Speedy trial Crimm argues that the court erred in denying his motion to quash indictment, because his right to a speedy trial was violated by the State’s failure to indict for approximately twenty-three months. Speedy trial issues are analyzed by looking at the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. Approximately twenty eight months elapsed between Crimm's arrest and the trial, which is presumptively prejudicial. The State asserts that the reason for the delay in indicting Crimm was due to Crimm’s failure to pay restitution to the victim. Plea negotiations undertaken and acquiesced to by the defendant are just cause for delay. By falsely agreeing to repay the victim, Crimm avoided the victim pursuing an indictment against him. When the case was first presented to the grand jury, an indictment was not returned due to the need for further investigation. Delays attributable to the complex nature of the case, such as a conspiracy charge, are justifiable delays. Crimm never demanded a speedy trial. Crimm has failed to show any prejudice which may have resulted from the failure to obtain an indictment. Given these factors, Crimm's right to a speedy trial was not violated. Issue 2: Suppression of statement Crimm argues that the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the statement he made at the police station, because admission of the statement is a violation of M.R.E. 408. Whether Crimm’s statement at the police station was a settlement offer as intended by Rule 408 is unlikely because a victim in a criminal case has no power to settle the defendant’s prosecution. In a criminal prosecution, evidence of the offer to compromise is not admissible to prove the validity or invalidity of a claim. It was error for the judge to admit the testimony in this case since there was no reason for it to be offered other than to prove the validity of the charges brought. However, the error is harmless in light of the existence of the overwhelming evidence of Crimm’s guilt. Issue 3: Two-theory instruction Crimm argues that he was entitled to a two-theory instruction which is a proper instruction in a circumstantial evidence case. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant an instruction that improperly commented on the evidence and was duplicative.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court