Henderson v. State, 97-KA-00775-SCT.
Decision Date | 04 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 97-KA-00775-SCT.,97-KA-00775-SCT. |
Citation | 732 So.2d 211 |
Parties | Jacob HENDERSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Edmund J. Phillips, Jr., Attorney, Newton, for Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Billy L. Gore, Attorney for Appellee.
BEFORE PRATHER, C.J., McRAE AND WALLER, JJ.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. On June 6, 1997, Jacob Henderson was indicted as an habitual offender for the October 19, 1995, burglary of the M & K Convenience Store in Lake, Mississippi. On June 13, 1997, Henderson was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the Scott County Circuit Court to seven years in prison without parole, and fined $5,000.00. On June 17, 1997, Henderson's motion for a new trial was denied. Henderson appeals, in forma pauperis, and raises the following issues for consideration by this Court:
A. Whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's objection to rebuttal testimony of prosecution witness Henry Minor as improper?
B. Whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant's claim that he had been denied a speedy trial and in denying his implicit motion for dismissal?
C. Whether introduction of evidence that prosecution witness and alleged accomplice Daniel Wilson had agreed to plead guilty to being an accessory to the same crime as appellant was charged with, denied appellant a fair trial?
¶ 2. This Court finds that the issues raised by Henderson are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
¶ 3. The M & K Convenience Store in Lake Mississippi was robbed, between 10:00 p.m., October 18, 1995, and 1:30 a.m., October 19, 1995. The following were stolen: 106 cartons of cigarettes, some rolled change, and some plastic shipping crates with the store's name on them. Two witnesses saw a U-Haul truck parked outside the front door of the store, between 12:15 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., on October 19, 1995.
¶ 4. The appellant's co-indictee, Daniel Wilson of Jackson, testified that, on the night of the burglary, Henderson asked Wilson to ride in a U-Haul truck. Wilson agreed to do so, but did not ask where they were going or where Henderson got the truck. Wilson slept, and, when he awoke, Henderson had parked the truck in front of M & K Convenience Store. Henderson exited the truck, and said that he would be "right back."
¶ 5. Wilson heard glass break and saw Henderson take two crates of cigarettes from the store and place them in the back of the truck. Wilson did not exit the cab of the truck and he did not help Henderson; Wilson did not know what Henderson was going to do, until he heard the glass break. After Henderson finished loading the truck, they went to Morton. Henderson told Wilson, "[D]on't say nothing". Wilson, who was scared, complied.
¶ 6. The police stopped them in Morton, and Henderson gave permission to search the truck. The police found the marked crates of cigarettes, the rolled change, a pair of gloves, and a crowbar in the back of the truck. Henderson stated that he got the cigarettes from "a wholesale place in Jackson." Henderson and Wilson were arrested.
¶ 7. Wilson, pled guilty to accessory after the fact, in exchange for the State's sentencing recommendation of three years in prison, with two years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Wilson, who had never been convicted of or pled guilty to another felony, understood that he could have gone to jail for seven years on the burglary charge.
¶ 8. Wilson denied that the burglary was his idea. Wilson also denied that anyone else was involved in the burglary, or that anyone else followed them in a separate vehicle. However, Henderson, age 39, contradicted Wilson. According to Henderson, around 9:45 p.m., on October 18, 1995, someone named "Nugene" approached in a U-Haul truck, and offered to pay Henderson and Wilson to help move some furniture for a female friend in Morton.
¶ 9. Henderson and Wilson agreed, and, they left Jackson in the U-Haul truck around 11:00 p.m. They followed Nugene, who was driving a car, from Jackson to Morton. Upon arriving in Morton, Nugene directed them to stop at a gas station. Nugene said that he was going to see if the woman was home, and left in his own vehicle.
¶ 10. After about fifteen minutes, Henderson decided to leave. As he left Morton, Henderson was stopped by the police. Henderson had no idea what was in the back of the U-Haul truck.
¶ 11. Henderson denied telling the police that the cigarettes came from any particular place. Henderson denied going to Lake or breaking into the M & K Convenience Store that night. Rather, Henderson stated that he had never heard of the store. Henderson also denied knowledge or ownership of the crowbar and gloves. Henderson had previously been convicted and incarcerated in the penitentiary for two felonies: business burglary and auto burglary.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
¶ 12. Henderson first argues that Officer Minor's rebuttal testimony was improper. The record reflects that, on cross-examination by the State, Henderson denied telling the police where he got the cigarettes. The State called Officer Minor in rebuttal, who testified over Henderson's objection. Minor stated that, when he discovered the cigarettes in the U-Haul, he asked where Henderson got them. Henderson replied that he got the cigarettes from "a wholesale place in Jackson."
¶ 13. Henderson argues that Officer Minor's testimony was outside the scope of proper rebuttal testimony. Long ago, this Court determined that: Rush v. State, 254 Miss. 641, 653, 182 So.2d 214, 219 (1966).
"The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused." Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss.1990). The discretion of the trial judge, however, must be exercised within the boundaries of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Johnston, 567 So.2d at 238. See M.R.E. 103(a), 104(a). M.R.E. 611(b) allows wide-open cross-examination so long as the matter probed is relevant. M.R.E. 611(b), Comment; State Highway Com'n of Miss. v. Havard, 508 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Miss.1987).
Zoerner v. State, 725 So.2d 811 (Miss.1998) (quoting Johnston v. State, 618 So.2d 90, 93-94 (Miss.1993)) (emphasis added).
¶ 14. In the case sub judice, the defendant took the stand. Therefore, his credibility was relevant. On cross-examination, the State apparently sought to impeach Henderson by showing that he lied to the arresting officer—that is, he told Officer Minor that the cigarettes came from a wholesale place in Jackson. When Henderson's testimony on the stand was different from Minor's version of the facts, the State was properly allowed to impeach Henderson with Minor's testimony. See Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 499, 503 (Miss. 1995) () (quoting Stewart v. State, 596 So.2d 851, 853 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 15. Thus, the trial judge did not abused his discretion by admitting this evidence, which was relevant to Henderson's credibility. See Johnson, 666 So.2d at 503 () (citing Green v. State, 614 So.2d 926, 935 (Miss.1992); M.R.E. 103(a)). Therefore, Henderson's argument on this point is without merit.
¶ 16. Henderson also claims that he was denied a speedy trial. The record reflects that he was arrested October 19, 1995; indicted June 6, 1996; and, tried June 13, 1997. The record further indicates that Henderson made the following statements to the trial judge—after the jury was selected, and before the jury was empaneled:
¶ 17. Based on this exchange, Henderson argues that he implicitly asserted his right to a speedy trial and moved to dismiss. The State contends that Henderson never asserted his right to a speedy trial. It appears that Henderson was arguing the sufficiency of the indictment, and not his right to a speedy trial. This is particularly true, given the context of Henderson's comments. That is, the jury had already been selected, and an argument for a speedy trial was moot. The trial judge could not do anything to give Henderson a speedier trial at that point. Even assuming that Henderson's comments constituted an assertion of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the argument is without merit.
¶ 18. The familiar, four-pronged test for reviewing constitutional speedy trial questions was set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972):(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sharkey v. State
...statement, admissible under Miss. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) ); Clemons v. State , 733 So.2d 266, 271 (Miss. 1999) ; Henderson v. State , 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss. 1999).¶43. In fact, in Wallace v. State , this Court expressly distinguished the State impeaching a codefendant turned witness with his......
-
McDonald v. State, 2002-KA-02051-COA.
...examination, as opposed to evidence of the collective judgment of another jury.... White, 616 So.2d at 307. See also Henderson v. State, 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.1999). ¶ 22. On cross-examination Lard was questioned extensively about the nature of any sentencing arrangement he was receiving......
-
Clemons v. State
...examination, as opposed to evidence of the collective judgment of another jury. White, 616 So.2d at 307-308. See also Henderson v. State, 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.1999). ¶ 21. Based on this authority, Clemons' argument is without merit. This is particularly true, given that Clemons' attorne......
-
Palm v. State, No. 97-KA-01303-SCT
...examination, as opposed to evidence of the collective judgment of another jury.... White, 616 So.2d at 307. See also Henderson v. State, 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.1999). ¶ 17. The White Court, 616 So.2d at 309, also relied on a dissenting opinion in Buckley v. State, 223 So.2d at 529, wherei......