Stewart v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-02143-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Automobile burglary - Motion for forensic expert - Suppression of statements - 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: 11-25-2002 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: CONVICTION OF THREE COUNTS OF BURGLARY OF AN AUTO AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS ON EACH COUNT WITH EACH RUNNING CONSECUTIVELY District Attorney: Alexander C. Martin Case Number: 2002-0151CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles E. Stewart, Jr. a/k/a Charles Edward Stewart |
M. A. BASS, JR. |
||
| 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: | Automobile burglary - Motion for forensic expert - Suppression of statements - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stanley Stewart, Jr. was convicted of three counts of automobile burglary and sentenced to three consecutive three-year terms. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion for forensic expert Stewart argues that the court erred in denying his motion for funds to hire a handwriting expert. An indigent’s right to defense expenses is conditioned upon a showing that such expenses are needed to prepare and present an adequate defense. Stewart contended that he was in need of an expert to show that he did not sign a waiver of his rights prior to giving a statement. While Stewart denied signing the waiver of rights form, the overwhelming evidence was that he did. Under these circumstances, Stewart offered no concrete reasons to justify the provision of expert consultation at public expense. Issue 2: Suppression of statements Stewart argues that the court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress the incriminating oral statements which he gave to an officer. The State presented the testimony of all of the law enforcement officers who were present when the statements were allegedly made. Each of the officers testified that the statements had been freely and voluntarily given by Stewart after he had been advised of and waived his rights. Therefore, the court did not err in overruling Stewart’s motion to suppress. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Stewart argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty verdict. The evidence in this case is more than sufficient to support Stewart’s guilt of the crimes with which he was charged. Three officers testified that Stewart gave incriminating statements in which he acknowledged that he burglarized several automobiles, gave descriptions of those vehicles, and described what items he took from the automobiles. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
