Roland v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00872-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Funds for investigator - Spousal privilege - M.R.E. 504 - Telephone conversation - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2003 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: CONVICTION OF MURDER, ARSON OF A DWELLING, AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A FELON. SENTENCED TO THREE CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR 02-199FA |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Steven Roland a/k/a Steven A. Roland |
CLAY SPENCER NAILS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Funds for investigator - Spousal privilege - M.R.E. 504 - Telephone conversation - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Steven Roland was convicted of murder, arson, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Roland, a habitual offender, was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Funds for investigator Roland argues that the court erred by denying his motion for funds to hire an investigator. A defendant is not entitled to an investigator without showing a substantial need or concrete reasons why an investigator is necessary. Roland's motion did not indicate a substantial need or a concrete reason why he needed an investigator. Issue 2: Spousal privilege Roland argues that the court erred in allowing his ex-wife’s testimony. M.R.E. 504, the spousal privilege rule, is exclusively limited to communications which are intended to be confidential. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. Roland’s ex-wife testified as to what Roland said and did in the victim's presence. Thus, until Roland killed the victim, Roland did not speak or act in confidence with his wife. Roland's altercation with the victim was not a communication, nor was it confidential. Issue 3: Telephone conversation Roland argues that the court's refusal to exclude a recorded conversation he had with his ex-wife constituted reversible error. The spousal privilege does not exclude the conversation from evidence. Roland placed the call from the county jail. A warning is posted near the telephone alerting callers that calls may be monitored or recorded. Thus, there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Issue 4: Photographs Roland argues that photographs of the victim’s remains served no purpose other than to inflame the jury. Photographs of the victim have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, the location of the body, the cause of death, or clarify or supplement a witness's testimony. Here, the photographs revealed the position and location of the victim's body and corroborated the testimony of Roland’s ex-wife and the autopsy report. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Roland argues that the evidence was insufficient. Roland’s ex-wife testified that Roland killed the victim and set his house on fire. Her testimony was corroborated by a witness who testified that she saw Roland's truck near the victim's home on the day of the murder. The autopsy corroborated the ex-wife's version of the crime. Accordingly, the jury had ample evidence to convict Roland. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
