Rodgers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01381-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01381-COA ; 2010-CT-01381-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling, Conspiracy to commit larceny & Armed robbery - Expert testimony - Insanity defense - Mens rea Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Russell, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-26-2010 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: James L. Roberts Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION; COUNT II, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED; AND COUNT III, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS WITH FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A TOTAL FINE OF $3,000, WITH THE SENTENCES ON ALL COUNTS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR09-032-RM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John Daniel Rodgers |
JIM WAIDE
RACHEL MARIE PIERCE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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: | Burglary of dwelling, Conspiracy to commit larceny & Armed robbery - Expert testimony - Insanity defense - Mens rea |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Rodgers was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, conspiracy to commit larceny, and armed robbery. For the burglary-of-a-dwelling conviction, Rodgers was sentenced to twenty-five years, with ten years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He was sentenced to five years for the conspiracy conviction, with all five years suspended. For armed robbery, Rodgers was sentenced to thirty years, with fifteen years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Rodgers argues that the circuit court erred in excluding Dr. Masur’s testimony regarding Rodgers’ “inability to know about the crimes” and claims that the testimony was being “offered to show that [he] could not appreciate the codefendants’ criminal scheme, not to show his lack of capacity to form criminal intent.” The decision to exclude expert testimony will only be considered error if the decision was arbitrary or clearly erroneous. Rodgers never raised a defense of insanity and was found competent to stand trial. For a defendant to be found insane, he must not have had the ability to realize and appreciate the nature and quality of his deeds when committed and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. A defendant’s sanity is the province of the jury, who may accept or reject both lay and expert testimony in making its determination. However, in cases where insanity is not a defense, the Mississippi Supreme Court has rejected the argument that expert testimony on the defendant’s state of mind and ability to react to external events would aid the jury in its function as finder of facts. To permit comment on the subjective intentions of an accused by a witness based on conclusions reached from his observation invades the province of the fact finders. Rodgers submits that Dr. Masur’s testimony was not evidence of “diminished capacity.” Rather, he claims that the testimony was merely “observational” evidence and was admissible to rebut the State’s proof concerning mens rea. Here, Dr. Masur’s proposed testimony concerned “diminished capacity.” There is little distinction between testimony that a defendant is not capable of forming mens rea and the testimony offered in this case – that Rodgers’s behavioral characteristics or tendencies could render him unable to readily comprehend that he was participating in a crime. It is apparent that Dr. Masur’s testimony was offered, not merely as observation evidence, but as opinion evidence as to whether Rodgers’s mental deficiencies made it unlikely that he was capable of knowing what he was doing. While a small portion of the testimony proffered by Dr. Masur may have been admissible observation evidence, the circuit judge did not err in finding that it would have been difficult for Dr. Masur to testify within these “prescribed bounds.” Furthermore, Rodgers’s impaired social skills and difficulties in processing social cues were adequately provided through lay testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
