Carr v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-00826-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-24-2004
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Capital murder - Prima facie showing of discrimination - Suppression of statements - Motion to abolish peremptory challenges - Photographs - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-04-2003
Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: CAPITAL MURDER - LIFE
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: CR2002-70-LT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Columbus Carr, Jr.




TOMMY WAYNE DEFER DAVID L. WALKER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: Capital murder - Prima facie showing of discrimination - Suppression of statements - Motion to abolish peremptory challenges - Photographs - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Columbus Carr was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Prima facie showing of discrimination Carr argues that the court erred in finding that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecutor in jury selection on the basis of both sex and race. In order to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in the selection of a petit jury, a defendant must establish that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race, and that this raises an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude veniremen from the jury on account of their race. This rationale has been extended to gender discrimination. Here, the State only used three out of seven challenges against blacks. Similarly, the State only used four out of seven challenges against females, and the other three against males. Therefore, the State's use of peremptory challenges did not suggest a pattern or raise an inference of discrimination. Issue 2: Suppression of statements Carr argues that his statements to the police were not given voluntarily. Carr was read his Miranda warnings at the time he was arrested and again before being questioned. Carr also signed a waiver of rights on two different occasions after being asked to sign only if he understood. Both statements were tape recorded, and there was no indication that Carr's statements were anything but voluntary. Issue 3: Motion to abolish peremptory challenges Carr argues that the judge erred in denying his motion to abolish peremptory challenges. The Mississippi Supreme Court recently refused to abolish peremptory challenges. Issue 4: Photographs Carr argues that the court erred in overruling his motion to exclude exhibits consisting of photographs of the crime scene and the victim's body. The court's finding that each of the photographs showed something different, which was of evidentiary value, was not erroneous. Issue 5: Jury instruction Carr argues that the court erred in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction which defined mental retardation and stated that if the jury found Carr to be mentally retarded they could not give him the death penalty. Because Carr did not receive the death penalty, this issue is moot. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Carr argues that the proof was insufficient to establish that he possessed the requisite intent to commit the underlying felony of armed robbery because there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. Although no direct evidence of a robbery, in the form of cash or property that was taken from the victim, was found in Carr's possession, the armed robbery statute expressly provides that a person may be convicted of armed robbery for taking or attempting to take personal property of another under certain circumstances. There was adequate evidence for the jury to conclude that Carr hit the victim with a metal chair and stabbed her multiple times. Carr confessed that he went to the victim's residence to attempt to borrow money, and that when she refused, he attacked her. Furthermore, Carr admitted that after he attacked her, he began searching the home for money. It was reasonable for the jury to infer that Carr's actions in the victim's residence were sufficient overt acts to support the underlying felony of armed robbery.


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