Quinn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00288-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00288-SCT ; 2002-KA-00288-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-28-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Comments by judge - Hearsay - Prosecutorial misconduct 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: 12-14-2001 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: R.I. Prichard, III Disposition: GUILTY OF COUNT I ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC; COUNT II CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS, WITH TWO YEARS SUSPENDED, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, WITH SAID SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO COUNT I. District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: K00-0084P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Katina Quinn |
JONATHAN MICHAEL FARRIS |
||
| 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 & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Comments by judge - Hearsay - Prosecutorial misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Katina Quinn was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. She was sentenced to twenty-five years for the armed robbery conviction and five years for the conspiracy conviction. Quinn appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Quinn argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she planned, aided, abetted or assisted in the robbery. For there to be a conspiracy, there must be a recognition on the part of the conspirators that they are entering into a common plan and knowingly intend to further its common purposes. The crime of conspiracy to commit robbery may be proven by an accomplice's testimony that connects the defendant to the robbery. Here, one of the Quinn’s co-conspirators testified that he, along with Quinn and another, planned to rob Columbia Cash, that the trio rode in Quinn’s step-brother’s car from Gautier to Columbia, that Quinn was the get-away driver, and that after the robbery, the bounty was split between himself, Quinn, and the other person. Issue 2: Comments by judge Quinn argues that the court impermissibly interjected itself into the trial by making comments on the testimony of certain witnesses, by coaching the State as to the proper questions to ask, and by making biased rulings in favor of the State when the defense objected to questions posed by the State. An appellate court will not hesitate to reverse where the trial judge displays partiality, becomes an advocate, or, in any significant way, conveys to the jury the impression that he has sided with the prosecution. While the court occasionally, for the purpose of clarity, rephrased a question asked by the State, the judge’s actions were not an act of impartiality or a deliberate attempt to influence the jury. Issue 3: Hearsay Quinn argues that the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony when a detective testified as to the identity of the culprits as related to him by a witness. Prior inconsistent statements are admissible for impeachment purposes but are not admissible as substantive evidence. The testimony of Detective Preston was admissible, as it was for impeachment purposes, since the witness denied any conversation between Quinn and himself regarding her involvement in the robbery as the driver of the get-away car. Issue 4: Prosecutorial misconduct Quinn argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it attempted to elicit testimony in direct violation of the court's ruling of a defense motion in limine. Although the State did violate the motion in limine regarding the amount of money Quinn had on her person by specifically questioning a witness about the matter, Quinn has waived the issue by her failure to object when the question was asked. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
