Henderson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00806-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00806-SCT ; 2002-CT-00806-SCT ; 2002-KA-00806-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-03-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Defective indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Voluntary communication Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-02-2002 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS WITH THREE YEARS SUSPENDED District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2001-94 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Henderson |
AZKI SHAH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Burglary of dwelling - Defective indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Voluntary communication |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Henderson was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to seven years with three years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Henderson argues that the indictment was defective because it failed to identify or name the individual(s) who allegedly aided or abetted or acted in concert with in the commission of the burglary. Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules requires that an indictment must contain a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, and it must fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Here, the indictment set forth the essential facts constituting the charge, and Henderson and his counsel were able to ascertain the nature and cause of the accusation. Issue 2: Unlawful arrest Henderson argues that the court erred in overruling his objection to the deputy’s testimony recounting Henderson's response to his initial question, because the testimony was a product of an unlawful arrest. An officer is allowed to have a voluntary communication with an individual regardless of what facts are known to the officer because it involves no force and no detention of the individual interviewed. Because the deputy’s questions were properly characterized as a voluntary conversation or an investigatory stop and temporary detention, the court did not err in admitting the testimony of about the conversation prior to arrest. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
