Hurt v. State Of Miss.
Decision Date | 20 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 2008-KA-00424-COA.,2008-KA-00424-COA. |
Citation | 34 So.3d 1191 |
Parties | Danny HURT, Appellant,v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
[34 So.3d 1191 1192]
W. Daniel Hinchcliff, attorney for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Stephanie Breland Wood, attorney for appellee.
Before KING, C.J., BARNES and ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. A jury in the Circuit Court of Franklin County found Danny Hurt guilty of armed robbery. Hurt was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a habitual offender, without eligibility for parole or probation. Hurt's sentence was also enhanced by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-351(Rev.2007) because the victim of the armed robbery was a person over the age of sixty-five years. Hurt was ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $1,700 and all court costs, including attorney's fees. Aggrieved by the circuit court's ruling, Hurt appeals, alleging that the prosecutor's comments during trial regarding his post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence violated his Fifth Amendment
[34 So.3d 1191 1193]
rights and thereby denied him a fundamentally fair trial. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. Seventy-nine-year-old Curtley Hayes was the victim of an armed robbery on April 25, 2007. Hayes routinely checked several oil wells in Franklin County in his work as an independent oilfield pumper. Hayes was in the process of checking an oil well when someone came up from behind, held a knife to his throat, and hit him on the back of the head. The attacker knocked Hayes to the ground and took all the cash from his wallet. The attacker then threw Hayes's cell phone into the woods, knocked off his glasses, and stole his truck. After the robbery, Hayes walked to a nearby home and contacted the Franklin County Sheriff's Department. When Sheriff James Newman arrived, Hayes described his attacker as about five-foot-nine and approximately 165 pounds. However, Hayes was unable to describe his attacker's face because his attacker's head and body were completely covered.
¶ 3. Sheriff Newman soon identified Hurt as a suspect in the armed robbery. Hayes knew Hurt as a result of Hurt's previous work at Cornwell Well Services (Cornwell) repairing oil wells. Hayes had visited Cornwell in the past and had coffee with Hurt on several occasions. Hayes testified at trial that everyone, including Hurt, was aware of Hayes daily routine of checking the oil wells. It was discovered that Hurt was aware of the exact route Hayes generally took to inspect the oil wells. Hayes also testified that it was well known by the workers at Cornwell that he carried cash with him on his daily route.
[34 So.3d 1191 1194]
Jones visited Hayes at his home and identified Hurt as the perpetrator of the armed robbery. Jones then relayed the information to Sheriff Newman. Jones was subsequently arrested for armed robbery, and she took the sheriff to the place where she had waited for Hurt. She said that Hurt passed her notes while she was in jail and told her to keep her mouth shut.
¶ 6. Arthur Ball also testified against Hurt. Ball was incarcerated in an adjoining cell to Hurt for a short period of time. Ball claimed that Hurt admitted to committing the armed robbery, and he said that he witnessed Hurt attempting to pass notes to Jones in jail.
¶ 7. During the State's opening statement and during its case-in-chief, the prosecutor commented on Hurt's post-arrest silence for most of the trip from New Albany to Franklin County. The prosecutor questioned why Hurt would remain silent about his alibi until they reached Brookhaven, preventing Sheriff Newman from interviewing potential alibi witnesses while he was still in New Albany. During Sheriff Newman's testimony, he repeatedly stated that Hurt made no comment during the trip from New Albany to the Brookhaven substation. Hurt also testified in his own defense at trial. During the cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned why Hurt did not ask Sheriff Newman any details about the crime but instead remained silent upon his arrest. Hurt responded that: Again, in closing arguments, the prosecution referred to Hurt's initial silence for an almost three-hour trip after his arrest before he disclosed he had alibi witnesses.
¶ 8. Hurt was indicted on September 11, 2007, under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 (Rev.2006) for armed robbery, enhanced by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-351 because the victim was a person over the age of sixty-five. At trial, Hurt moved for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the State's case and again at the close of trial, which the circuit court denied Following the jury trial, Hurt was found guilty of armed robbery and was also found to be a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev.2007). Hurt was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without eligibility for parole or probation. Hurt was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $1,700 and to pay all court costs, including attorney's fees.
DISCUSSION
Whether it was error to allow the prosecutor's comments at trial.
¶ 9. Hurt argues on appeal that his constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's repeated references to Hurt's post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence during the trial. Hurt contends that the case against him consisted primarily of unreliable testimony from an accomplice, Jones, and from Ball, an untrustworthy jailhouse snitch. Therefore, Hurt argues that the State improperly augmented its case with questions and comments regarding Hurt's silence after his arrest, using his silence as an implicit admission of guilt. During the State's opening statement, the prosecutor stated the following:
Similarly, during the State's questioning of Sheriff Newman, the following exchange took place:
¶ 10. Hurt initially notes that it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence, but he acknowledges that commenting on a defendant's post-arrest, pre- Miranda silence has not been held to be reversible error under Mississippi law. Hurt argues that such reasoning is logically inconsistent and that both pre- M...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stokes v. State
... ... Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1288–89 (Miss.1994) (holding failure to object at trial waives issue for appellate review). ¶ 19. While Stokes acknowledges this procedural ... Hurt v. State, 34 So.3d 1191, 1197 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (“A review under the plain-error doctrine is necessary when a party's fundamental rights ... ...
-
Jones v. State
... ... Cole v. State , 126 So. 3d 880, 883 (13) (Miss. 2013). "[J]udicial discretion is not boundless but is defined as a sound judgment which is not exercised arbitrarily, but with regard to what is ... 3d at 356 (7) (citing Hurt v. State , 34 So. 3d 1191, 1197 (17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ). Here we find the trial court did deviate from the rules of evidence in allowing ... ...
-
Hall v. State
... ... " Davis v. State , 196 So. 3d 194, 198 (17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Beech v. Leaf River Forest Prods. , 691 So. 2d 446, 448 (Miss. 1997) ). 11. "The accused has a right to a change of venue ... at (23) (quoting Hurt v. State , 34 So. 3d 1191, 1196 (12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ). "A review under the plain-error doctrine is necessary when a party's fundamental ... ...
-
Jenkins v. State
... ... Eckman v. Moore, 876 So.2d 975, 984 ( 31) (Miss.2004). 7. Jenkins actually raises two separate issues under this heading. First, Jenkins claims that evidence of his prior conviction was not ... In Hurt v. State, 34 So.3d 1191, 1200 ( 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2010), this Court held that there is no plain, clear[,] or obvious error regarding the introduction ... ...