Ratliff v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01799-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony shoplifting - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 701 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-17-2003 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER FOR FELONY SHOPLIFTING. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2003-0031 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John D. Ratliff a/k/a "Black" |
ALLAN D. SHACKELFORD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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: | Felony shoplifting - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 701 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Ratliff was convicted of felony shoplifting and was sentenced to five years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of videotape Ratliff argues that the court erred in allowing the store manager to identify Ratliff as the man in the videotape and in allowing two witnesses to testify as to what the man in the videotape was doing. M.R.E. 701 permits the introduction of non-expert opinion evidence if the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to the clear understanding of the determination of a fact in issue. The store manager testified that Ratliff wore the same coat, shoes, pants and hat as the man in the videotape and that she also recognized his facial features. Due to the manager's personal observation of and confrontation with Ratliff, she clearly possessed a greater familiarity with Ratliff than the jury. Accordingly, the court did not err in admitting her opinion testimony that Ratliff was, indeed, the man in the video. With regard to the testimony as to what the man in the videotape was doing, neither witness possessed personal knowledge of the event which was recorded on the videotape. Although neither witness would then be positioned under Rule 701 to offer opinion testimony regarding Ratliff's recorded actions, the error is harmless considering the totality of the evidence before the court. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Ratliff argues that the elements of shoplifting are simply not proven. However, the evidence is not such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find Ratliff not guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
