Griffin v. State, 90-KA-1344
Decision Date | 24 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 90-KA-1344,90-KA-1344 |
Citation | 607 So.2d 1197 |
Parties | Jimmie GRIFFIN, a/k/a Jimmy Griffin v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Sam Clifton, Cleveland, for appellant.
Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., John R. Henry, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ.
Jimmie Griffin a/k/a Jimmy Griffin and Michael G. Clark were indicted by the Bolivar County Grand Jury on October 23, 1990, for the September 15, 1990, burglary of the Crockett Food Mart in Cleveland, Mississippi.Griffin, having two prior convictions for burglary, was also indicted as an habitual offender under Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 99-19-81(1972).A jury trial on charges against Griffin and Clark was held on December 17, 1990.The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charges against Clark.The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charges against Griffin.Aggrieved by the guilty verdict, Griffin has appealed to this Court assigning several errors.Finding no reversible error, this Court affirms.
Crockett Food Martat 1024 South Chrisman and on the corner of Wade Grove Street in Cleveland, Mississippi, was burglarized in the early morning hours of September 15, 1990.Jimmie a/k/a Jimmy Griffin and Michael Clark were charged with the crime.
Eddie Lee"Sleepy" Crockett, owner of Crockett Food Mart, closed his store at 1:00 a.m. on September 15, 1990.Only one of the three outside lights was turned on.He returned to the store to check things at 2:10 a.m. Crockett drove around the store.No outside light was shining, and Crockett assumed that the bulb had blown.
Cheewautha Lee, a resident of South Chrisman, living seven or eight houses south of the store, was walking south on Chrisman at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. Lee had been to B's Club north of the store on Chrisman.She passed the store and heard pop bottles falling.The sound came from inside the store.Lee passed Willie Earl Coleman, who was walking north on Chrisman.She told him, "There's somebody in the store."Coleman told her, "Yeah, I'm going that way and I'll see 'cause I think I saw something the first time I passed through there."Lee went home.
Sometime after 2:00 a.m. Coleman then decided to walk down the street to see if the B & L Lounge was open.Coleman passed the store on his way to the B & L.As he passed, he noticed a "flick" of light inside the store.Coleman continued to walk toward B & L.When he got to B & L, it was closed.He turned around and headed back to his home.He passed Lee.As Coleman passed the store a second time, he noticed another "flick" of light and realized that it was a cigarette lighter.Coleman hid beside the church, across the street from the store, on the corner of Chrisman and Wade Grove.He waited three or four minutes.Coleman could not see the store, but soon saw two men, whom he assumed had just left the store, crossing the street and walking away from the store.Coleman recognized Michael Clark, but did not recognize the other man.He later identified Griffin as the other man he saw that night.The two men were each carrying brown paper grocery sacks.Coleman followed the two men at a safe distance as they walked away from the store for a block or two.
Officer E. Bruce Gresham was the first officer called to the scene of the burglary the morning of September 15, 1990.When Gresham arrived, he was met by Dorothy Marshall, an employee of the store who had called the police when she discovered the break-in.Investigator George Serio of the Cleveland Police Department was called to the scene.He found a hole in the front door where a panel had been knocked out, cartons of cigarettes and loose cigarettes scattered on the floor, and store items pulled from the shelves.A meat cleaver was impaled in the pay phone money box and had been used to pry the phone open.
Crockett returned to his store between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. on September 15th to find the business ransacked and Serio with other policemen investigating.Crockett noticed that the video machines had been broken into and that the alarm system had been unplugged.Crockett told Serio that missing items included wieners and lunchmeat from the meat counter, chewing gum, four cases of beer, two cartons of chewing tobacco, seventeen or eighteen cartons of cigarettes, cigarette lighters, an ice cooler chest, and money.Crockett noticed that the safe had been broken off of the floor board and that the meat cleaver was not hanging where he kept it on the wall behind the meat box.The scene was processed for fingerprints.Fingerprints were "lifted" from a safe, the knife that was stuck in the phone, and a carton of cigarettes.Serio investigated a vacant house located across the street from Crockett Food Mart.Inside the vacant house, Serio found a large ice cooler, some beer, and a carton of cigarettes.Crockett identified the items as some of the items taken from his store.Fingerprints were also "lifted" from two beer cans found either in the store or in the vacant house.
Later in the morning of September 15, after police had investigated the break-in, Coleman talked to Johnny Crockett, brother of Eddie Crockett, and told him what he had seen.Coleman told Johnny Crockett that he didn't want his name involved.Johnny Crockett contacted Serio.Serio decided to question Michael Clark and Jimmie Griffin.Serio and Officer McKinley Blockett went to the home of Cornelius Clark, Michael Clark's grandfather, where Michael Clark also lived.Michael Clark was not home, but Cornelius Clark gave Serio and Blockett consent to search the premises.In a storage building connected to the back of the house, Serio found two paper sacks containing cartons of cigarettes, money bills totaling $177, change totaling 55cents, little cigarette lighters, and food stamps.Cornelius Clark testified that the lock on the storage building was broken and that anyone could get into the storage room.Cornelius Clark also testified that seven people, including himself, lived at his home.
Serio continued to look for Michael Clark.Later the same morning, Serio found Michael Clark near the Clark residence.He also picked up Jimmie Griffin and took both men to the police station for questioning.Serio wanted to question Leroy Birge also.Serio spoke with Birge, and Birge voluntarily went to the police station the same morning for questioning.Birge was fingerprinted, and his home was searched.Serio and other officers determined that Birge was not involved and released him.After questioning Griffin, Serio released him because there was no evidence directly linking Griffin to the burglary.
Lee and Coleman discussed the break-in.Lee made a statement to the police on October 4, 1990.Lee told Serio that Coleman had told her not to give his name to the police and that Coleman had received a reward from one of the Crocketts.Coleman denied receiving a reward.Coleman never voluntarily reported what he had seen to the police.Serio eventually tracked Coleman down, and Coleman gave a statement to the police on October 4, 1990.
Griffin's fingerprints were sent to the Mississippi Crime Lab along with fingerprints lifted at the crime scene.Lonnie Arinder, a fingerprint expert employed by the Mississippi Crime Lab, examined the fingerprints taken at the crime scene and Griffin's fingerprints.He determined that the crime scene fingerprints and Griffin's fingerprints were the same.On October 16, 1990, the Mississippi Crime Lab contacted Serio and informed him that Griffin's fingerprints matched fingerprints from the crime scene.A warrant was issued for Griffin's arrest.He was arrested later that day.
Twenty-year-old Michael Clark testified on his own behalf at trial.According to Michael Clark, he spent most of the day with Griffin on September 14.The two young men are friends and cousins and "hang out" with each other often.The last time he saw Griffin was at 12:30 a.m., September 15, when Griffin left the B & L. Michael Clark claimed that he went to the B & L Lounge on the evening of the break-in, that he left around 12:50 a.m., and that he went home alone and went to bed.Michael Clark testified that he arrived at his home around 1:30 a.m. Michael Clark said he did pass by Crockett's Food Mart on his way home, but he did not enter the store.According to Michael Clark, he went to Griffin's home early the next morning.
Griffin did not testify on his own behalf at the trial.After deliberating 55 minutes, the jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of Michael Clark and a guilty verdict on the charges against Griffin.
Griffin contends that the verdict of the jury was contrary to law and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.In Burge v. State, 472 So.2d 392(Miss.1985), this Court stated that all evidence, even that which does not support the State's case, must be considered in the light most favorable to the State.Id. at 396.See alsoMay v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781(Miss.1984)."[T]his court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict."Spikes v. State, 302 So.2d 250, 251(Miss.1974).The State must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.Glass v. State, 278 So.2d 384, 386(Miss.1973).See alsoJohnson v. State, 452 So.2d 850, 853(Miss.1984);Winters v. State, 449 So.2d 766, 771(Miss.1984);Bullock v. State, 447 So.2d 1284, 1286-87(Miss.1984);Dickerson v. State, 441 So.2d 536, 538(Miss.1983);Gandy v. State, 438 So.2d 279, 285(Miss.1983).
Griffin contends that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, however, the evidence was more than sufficient to convict Griffin of burglary.
On the night of the burglary, Willie Earl Coleman testified that he saw a flicker of light inside the store as he was walking by.He walked down the street...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ivory v. State
...(quoting Dudley v. State, 719 So.2d 180, 182(¶ 9) (Miss.1998)). On review, the State is given "the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Collins, 757 So.2d at 337(¶ 5) (citing
Griffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss.1992)). "Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal." Collins,... -
Johnson v. State
...required to look to the overall circumstances of voir dire as well as the prosecutor's remarks and questioning during voir dire in order to decide whether a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination has been established.
Griffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss.1992). In Batson, the United States Supreme Court In deciding whether the defendant has made the requisite showing, the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances. For example, a "pattern" of strikes... -
Carle v. State
...Dudley v. State, 719 So.2d 180, 182(¶ 9) (Miss. 1998)). On review, the State is given "the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Collins, 757 So.2d at 337(¶ 5) (citing
Griffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss. 1992)). "Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal."... -
Arnold v. State
...evidence most favorable to the State and must assume that the fact-finder believed the State's witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993);
Griffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss.1992). On review, we accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, and the State is given "the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Griffin, 607 So.2d at 1201 (citationsGriffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss.1992). On review, we accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, and the State is given "the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Griffin, 607 So.2d at 1201(citations omitted). The Court will reverse such a ruling only for an abuse of discretion. McClain, 625 So.2d at 781. We will not order a new trial unless this Court is convinced that "the verdict is so contrary to...