Robinson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00778-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-07-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographs - Speedy trial - Description of knife - Peremptory challenges - Self-defense instruction Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Thomas and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, Lee and Myers, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-14-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 20 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. THE SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED OR SUSPENDED NOR SHALL SUCH PERSON BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR97-047 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Alvin Robinson a/k/a Alvin Lenard Robinson a/k/a Bernard Hill |
WILLIAM WAYNE HOUSLEY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographs - Speedy trial - Description of knife - Peremptory challenges - Self-defense instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Alvin Robinson was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Robinson argues that he used his knife solely to defend himself from the assault of an enraged, much larger man who was beating him and causing justified fear of his life. Two eyewitnesses testified that Robinson voluntarily left his vehicle to meet the challenge the victim had issued and both disputed Robinson's testimony that he had been dragged from the vehicle. There was sufficient evidence to conclude that Robinson intended to inflict serious physical injury to the victim during the course of mutual combat, and that no self-defense justification existed. Issue 2: Photographs Robinson argues that the admission into evidence of photographs of the victim’s body was error. Because the photographs are probative of the nature of the struggle between the two men, they are admissible. Issue 3: Speedy trial Robinson argues that the length of delay between remand and his third trial violated both his statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial. The rule that an accused must be brought to trial within 270 days of indictment does not apply to re-trials after remand. With regard to his constitutional claim, the court must consider length of delay, reason for delay; defendant's assertion of his right, and resulting prejudice. Robinson was the cause of substantial delay between the date he asserted his right and the date of trial, and he fails to explain the nature of any prejudice. Therefore, his constitutional right was not violated. Issue 4: Knife Robinson argues that the court erred in allowing the State to describe Robinson's knife as a "stabbing knife." The court sustained Robinson’s objection, and it is presumed that the jury understands that the court disapproves of the testimony or inquiry in question. In addition, anything further Robinson wished done he was required to request at that time which he failed to do. Issue 5: Peremptory challenges Robinson argues that the court improperly permitted the State to strike black members of the venire based solely on race. The court must make an on-the-record, factual determination, of the merits of the reasons cited for the use of peremptory challenges against potential jurors. In this case, the court required each side to explain the reasons for the strikes. Some strikes by both parties were disallowed, but for several of the strikes denied to the defense or permitted to the State, there was no adequate fact-finding. Issue 6: Self-defense instruction Robinson argues he was improperly denied a self-defense jury instruction. Failure by the court to grant an instruction which presents the defendant's theories of justification, defense or excuse is reversible error so long as there is some evidence to support the theory. Under Robinson's version of events, he would have gotten the knife before he made any assessment of the victim’s size. Also under his own testimony, Robinson did not use the knife until he became reasonably fearful of serious bodily injury from the much larger man's hitting him with his fists. This was a theory of defense supported by evidence that required an instruction. Although there were a couple of self-defense instructions given, the most important part of the defense was not explained, i.e., that the defendant was justified in using a deadly weapon against the larger and intimidating victim if Robinson reasonably perceived that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury from the victim's fists. Therefore, it was error not to grant the instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
