Conerly v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KP-01297-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault on officer & Aggravated assault on officer - Competency hearing - Other crimes’ evidence - Discovery violation - Elements instruction - Limiting instruction - Prosecutorial comments - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-15-2002 Appealed from: Walthall County Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: CONVICTION OF TWO COUNTS OF SIMPLE ASSAULT AND ONE COUNT OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS ON EACH OF THE SIMPLE ASSAULT COUNTS AND TWENTY YEARS ON THE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT COUNT FOR A TOTAL OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, WITH THE FIRST FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE AND THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. ALL SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 2002-11-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eldawaneli Tarloytauruss Conerly a/k/a Eldawain Conerly |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Simple assault on officer & Aggravated assault on officer - Competency hearing - Other crimes’ evidence - Discovery violation - Elements instruction - Limiting instruction - Prosecutorial comments - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eldawaneli Conerly was found guilty of two counts of simple assault on a law enforcement officer and one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to ten years for the simple assault and twenty years for the aggravated assault, for a total of thirty years, all counts to run consecutively. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Competency hearing Conerly argues that the court failed to order a competency hearing before allowing him to represent himself, and as a result, his waiver of right to counsel was neither voluntary nor intelligent. A judge has an obligation to order a competency hearing whenever a reasonable question of the defendant’s mental capacity arises. There is nothing in the record to suggest that a competency hearing was warranted in this case, and Conerly failed to provide evidence that would support his assertion that the judge should have ordered the hearing sua sponte. Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Conerly argues that the court erred in refusing to grant his motion in limine to exclude evidence pertaining to a previous armed robbery for which he had not been convicted, and evidence concerning a gun found in his car after the chase. Where substantially necessary to present to the jury the complete story of the crime, evidence or testimony may be given though it may reveal or suggest other crimes. The items about which Conerly complains were essential to the State’s presentation of a complete and coherent story to the jury. Issue 3: Discovery violation Conerly argues that the State’s failure to disclose alleged exculpatory evidence prior to trial resulted in his receiving an unfair trial. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection at trial constitutes a waiver of any error. The record reveals that Conerly did not object to the offense report on the basis that it was not presented during discovery. As a result, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 4: Jury instructions Conerly argues that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the elements of aggravated assault and in refusing to grant his proposed curative instruction on other crimes’ evidence. While instructions are to be read and considered as a whole, the instructions when read and considered together did not inform the jury of the elements which it had to find before it could convict Conerly of aggravated assault. However, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the element instruction did not cause or contribute to the jury reaching the verdict that it reached. Therefore, the error is harmless. With regard to the instruction on other crimes’ evidence, evidence of other crimes is admissible when necessary to tell a complete story to the jury. It was important that the jury understand why the officers were chasing Conerly. On these facts, it is doubtful that a limiting instruction was required. But even if one was required, the failure to give it was harmless. Issue 5: Prosecutorial comments Conerly argues that the prosecution’s strategy of continuously referring to the armed robbery, and instructing the jury to hold this against him in both the prosecution's opening and closing statements violated his right to a fair trial. The test for determining if an alleged improper requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the prosecutor’s argument creates an unjust prejudice against the accused that results in a decision influenced by the prejudice. Evaluating the statements in the context in which they were made, the prosecutor’s statements did not create unjust prejudice against Conerly and did not result in a verdict influenced by prejudice. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Conerly argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction. The undisputed evidence reveals that Conerly led police on a chase that spanned over two counties. The evidence also showed that the police attempted to stop Conerly numerous times, but he refused to stop, hitting three police cars in the process. Accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury was justified in finding Conerly guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
