Pierce v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00862-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2002 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: John M. Montgomery Disposition: GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF ARMED ROBBERY; SENTENCED TO SERVE TWO FIFTEEN-YEAR CONCURRENT TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED ON EACH COUNT, AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $5,000 AND RESTITUTION OF $220 IN COUNT I, AND TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $400 IN COUNT II District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2001-0267-CR1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Steven Paul Pierce |
WILLIAM JOSEPH BARNETT |
||
| 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: | Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Steven Pierce was convicted of two counts of armed robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Pierce argues that the State failed to prove that he possessed the specific intent to rob the victims. Where a crime consists of an act, combined with a specific intent, mere general malice or criminal intent is insufficient, and the requisite, specific intent must be shown as a matter of fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Here, the State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Pierce possessed the requisite intent to rob his victims of their money. The testimony presented by two victims provides direct evidence of Pierce’s specific intent to rob the men who he alleged were defrauding his poker machines. He made them disrobe and empty their pockets and then took the money that was inside the men’s pockets. Pierce also argues that the court's denial of his motion in limine and refusal to admit, for impeachment purposes, a transcript of a pretrial hearing entitles him to a new trial. Pierce's motion in limine sought to prohibit the State from adducing evidence regarding his pointing a pistol at the head of one of the victims. Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible in order to tell the complete story so as not to confuse the jury. Here, the testimony regarding Pierce's brandishing a pistol was not used to prove his character or that he acted in conformity therewith but to tell the complete story of Pierce’s armed robbery. With regard to the transcript of a pretrial hearing, Pierce withdrew his offer of the transcript into evidence. Therefore, he waived his right to complain about its non-admission. Pierce also argues that the jury was tainted due to a juror’s failure to disclose an alleged past negative incident with him. However, the judge found credible the juror’s denial of the allegations made by Pierce. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Pierce argues that his trial counsel was ineffective, because he should have requested a continuance for the potential discovery violation, he did not inform the court in a timely manner that two jurors did not truthfully answer questions during voir dire, and he did not request a jury instruction for a lesser-included offense. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The evidence does not support a finding that a discovery violation occurred or Pierce's allegation that jurors withheld material information or gave false information during voir dire. With regard to a request for a lesser included offense instruction, such an instruction can be given only if there is an evidentiary basis for it. Here, there is no evidentiary basis to suggest Pierce committed simple assault. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
