Myles v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01118-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Civil judgment - M.R.E. 404(b) - Lesser-included offense instructions Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-06-2002 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON WITH THREE YEARS SUSPENDED AND TWO YEARS TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Wilbert Myles |
DONALD RAFFERTY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Grand larceny - Civil judgment - M.R.E. 404(b) - Lesser-included offense instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wilbert Myles was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to five years with three years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Civil judgment Myles argues that the court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence concerning a civil judgment against him, because nothing concerning indebtedness constitutes a crime or shows untruthfulness which could be the proper subject of impeachment. M.R.E. 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith but may be admissible as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Although Myles's indebtedness and the fact that he worked two part-time jobs is not a "crime" within the meaning of the rule nor is it necessarily a "wrong," it can be considered an "act" and is relevant concerning his need for money at the time of the theft. Issue 2: Lessor-included offense instructions Myles argues that the court should have granted his request for lesser-included-offense instructions concerning petit larceny and trespass less than larceny. A lesser-included-offense instruction should be given unless the judge determines that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included-offense, and ultimately not guilty of at least one element of the principal charge. An instruction on petit larceny was not in order considering that the evidence was overwhelming that Myles removed the money orders from the justice court not on separate occasions, but in a singular act, and presented all three orders at once for cashing at the banks. With regard to trespass, Myles claims that he mistakenly picked up the money orders from the clerk's desk and later when he discovered he had done so, he went to the banks to attempt to cash the orders and return them to the persons who had purchased them. However, all evidence points to the contrary and therefore, the court did not err in refusing the instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
