Beal v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01613-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01613-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-01-2012 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bribery - Defective indictment - Amendment of indictment - Section 99-19-83 - Section 99-19-81 - Exclusion of videotape - Closing argument - Entrapment Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and King, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Dickinson, P.J., and Lamar, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2010 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: Appellant was convicted of bribery as a habitual offender. District Attorney: Michael Guest Case Number: 2010-0299 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dennis Jerome Beal |
EARNESTINE ALEXANDER
STEVEN WALDRUP |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS 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: | Bribery - Defective indictment - Amendment of indictment - Section 99-19-83 - Section 99-19-81 - Exclusion of videotape - Closing argument - Entrapment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennis Beal was convicted of bribery and sentenced to ten years in prison as a nonviolent habitual offender. Beal appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Beal argues that the charging language of the indictment for the bribery charge was fatally defective because it unduly influenced the grand jury, and the trial court erred in allowing the State to correct the charging language before trial. An indictment should be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and should fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. It is recommended that the code section under which the indictment is drawn be used. And amendments of indictments are permissible as to form but not as to the substance of the crime charged. Beal originally was indicted as a habitual offender under section 99-19-83, and Beal’s counsel made the trial court aware that the charging language of the indictment contained an error through a motion to dismiss. When Beal’s pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by the trial court, the State admitted that the indictment contained a scrivener’s error and that Beal met the habitual-offender status under section 99-19-81 instead of the habitual-offender status under section 99-19-83. The trial court correctly allowed the State to amend Beal’s indictment to properly reflect the appropriate habitual-offender status. Issue 2: Videotape Beal argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his request to publish the videotape to the jury, since the State had elicited testimony regarding the videotape in its case in chief. Although his attorney argues that the videotape was not provided to her in discovery by the State, the record is devoid of any instance in which Beal or the attorney was denied the right to view the videotape. The videotape was not relevant to the underlying charge of bribery, but the State opened the door for the videotape to become relevant when it decided to question a witness about the contents of the videotape. Essentially, the trial court permitted the witness to testify to facts not in evidence, since the State did not admit the videotape into evidence. As a result, the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the State’s witness to testify to the contents of the videotape and by prohibiting the defense from showing the jury the videotape. Beal’s right to confront the testimony of the witness was violated. Issue 3: Closing argument Beal argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to make improper and inflammatory opening and closing statements that were misleading to the jury. Beal made no objections to these alleged improper and inflammatory statements at trial and thus, the issue is barred. Issue 4: Entrapment Beal argues that the trial court should have found that he was entrapped as a matter of law. However, the trial court gave an entrapment instruction and submitted the question to the jury. Entrapment is a jury question. Because entrapment is a question of fact for the jury, Beal’s argument is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
