Garner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00391-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Evidence of acquittal of co-defendant - Identification evidence - Additional lineup - Defective indictment - Sufficiency of evidence Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2002 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED FOR ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2000-0154-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | C. K. Garner |
GEORGE T. KELLY
MARIE WILSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY GORE |
|
|
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 - Evidence of acquittal of co-defendant - Identification evidence - Additional lineup - Defective indictment - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | C. K. Garner was convicted of armed robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidence of acquittal The State successfully pursued a motion in limine to exclude any evidence that Garner’s co-defendant had been acquitted in an earlier trial. Garner argues that the exclusion of this evidence was prejudicial. If the co-defendant had been convicted in his separate trial, it would have been reversible error for the State to inject proof of that conviction in Garner’s trial in order to bolster its case. There is no principled reason to apply a different rule when the result of the earlier trial is favorable, rather than prejudicial, to the defense. Issue 2: Identification evidence Garner argues that he was initially identified as the assailant through an impermissibly suggestive show-up and that this rendered untrustworthy the witness’s initial identification and her subsequent in-court identification. The fact of an identification based on a single person show-up is not, of itself, a basis to exclude evidence of the identification. The question, instead, is whether, based on a totality of the circumstances, the show-up was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that it amounted to a deprivation of due process. Here, the witness’s identification of Garner was not made under such unnecessarily suggestive circumstances as to destroy the probative value of her identification. She testified that the assailants had confronted her in broad daylight and in close proximity, that they were not wearing masks and she gave particular attention to their features, her description given to police was sufficiently accurate for them to identify Garner as a suspect, and she continued to be certain that she had properly identified Garner as one of her assailants. Therefore, the court did not err in allowing the identification evidence to be admitted. Issue 3: Additional lineup Garner argues that the court erred in refusing his request that the State stage a pre-trial lineup. Since Garner fails to offer any authority or argument, the issue is without merit. Issue 4: Defective indictment Garner argues that the court erred in amending the indictment to set out venue. The failure to properly charge venue is a procedural defect that may be amended upon order of the court without the necessity of grand jury action. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Garner argues that his conviction should be reversed, because there was no physical evidence of his involvement nor was he ever found to be in possession of any of the fruits of the crime. The uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a crime is, of itself, sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if the jury finds the testimony worthy of belief. Here, the victim’s testimony provided evidence of all of the essential elements of the crime and her testimony identifying Garner was unequivocal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
