Forrest v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00683-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00683-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenges - Other crimes’ evidence - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : King, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-17-2002 Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PAY ALL COURT COSTS, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2001-0091-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Morris Forrest a/k/a Bookie a/k/a Booke |
LESLIE JONES MARTIN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. 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: | Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenges - Other crimes’ evidence - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Morris Forrest was convicted of the sale of cocaine and was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Forrest, who is a black male, argues that the State used all four of its peremptory challenges to exclude prospective black jurors and that the race-neutral reasons supplied by the State for excusing these four black jurors was inadequate. With regard to the first juror, she admitted that she was related to Forrest, that she sees Forrest regularly, and that she was also the cousin of his girlfriend. Knowing the defendant is a sufficiently race-neutral reason for challenging a potential juror. With regard to the second juror, she had two outstanding warrants for her arrest at the time of the venire. Therefore, the judge did not err in accepting the prosecution's peremptory challenge to her. The reason the third juror was struck was because she was an alderman for the City of Duck Hill and had been in the paper over a lot of controversy about the police department. Therefore, the judge did not err in accepting the prosecution's peremptory challenge to her. With regard to the fourth juror, she had been friends with Forrest's mother for years. Knowing the defendant's mother is a valid race-neutral reason for striking a juror. Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Forrest argues that other crimes not charged against him were heard by the jury through the playing of an audiotape, the testimony of a witness, and a remark made by the State during their closing argument. During the trial, Forrest stated that he had listened to the entire tape and had no objection to the tape being introduced into evidence. In addition, Forrest did not make a contemporaneous objection to the testimony of the witness or to the State’s closing argument. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Forrest argues that his conviction was against the overwhelming weight of evidence, because the undercover agent did not actually see Forrest in possession of the cocaine and the testimony of two witnesses was successfully impeached and should have been excluded. It is the duty of the jury to consider all the evidence before it, including that evidence which tends to impeach a witness's credibility, and then to decide what weight and worth to give to any particular witness's testimony. Here, the jury chose to believe the testimony of the witnesses implicating Forrest in the crime and their credibility was not so impeached such that no rational juror could possibly accept their statements as true. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
