Case Title: Rose v. State

Citation: 556 So. 2d 728

Docket Number: 07-KA-58718

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1990-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
556 So. 2d 728 (1990) Deborah Holley ROSE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 07-KA-58718. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 7, 1990. *729 David L. Walker, Law Offices of David L. Walker, Batesville, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen., elected Supreme Court Justice January 3, 1989, Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., John R. Henry, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and BLASS, JJ. BLASS, Justice, for the Court: Deborah Holley Rose was indicted by the grand jury of Panola County's Second Judicial District of the crime of Conspiracy to commit Grand Larceny in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-1(a), as amended (1972); and Grand Larceny in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-41 (1972). Co-indictees were Toy Franklin Coleman and Joseph Alton Ivy. Defendants were accused of stealing one EF 2000 Yamaha portable generator. The indictment accused Johnny Ray Fowler of knowingly receiving this *730 same property. The date of the crime was stated in the indictment as "on or about the 18th day of August, 1986." The indictment was amended at trial, changing the date of the alleged crime to "on or about September 9, 1986 to September 13, 1986 inclusive." The jury found Ms. Rose guilty on both counts, and she was sentenced to serve a term of four years in the custody of MDC on each count, to run concurrently. She was fined $1,000.00 and ordered to pay all Court costs. In addition, she was found in contempt of court for her conduct in discussing the case with a prospective juror and fined $250.00. She appeals raising ten issues. Finding merit in appellant's issues two and four, we reverse and remand for a new trial. We discuss only these dispositive issues, and those which are likely to recur on remand. Joseph Alton Ivy and Toy Franklin Coleman were intermittently employed as helpers by Dixie Roofing, Inc., owned by Terry Clifford Blakely. In the summer and fall of 1986 Dixie was reroofing a building. A Yamaha 2000 portable generator, used on the reroofing project, was discovered missing at the first of September. The generator valued at approximately $700.00, was subsequently located in the possession of co-defendant, Johnny Fowler. He initially denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the generator, but later turned himself in and surrendered the generator. Both Ivy and Coleman, testified on behalf of the State, that they stole a generator from the jobsite in September, 1986. On September 11, 1986, Blakely's secretary called Ivy in to sweep the roof. Rose drove him to work. Coleman went with Ivy and Rose, specifically for the purpose of stealing the generator. Ivy and Coleman stole the generator from the roof and hid it in a nearby wood. Later, Rose, Coleman, and Ivy returned and retrieved the generator, placing it in the trunk of Rose's car. The generator was taken to a small garage located beside appellant's house, where it was stored until sold to Johnny Fowler. Johnny Fowler, purchaser of the generator, testified that Rose called him and arranged a meeting with Ivy. Subsequently, he met Ivy and inspected the generator in a barn on Rose's property. The sale was completed with the payment of two $100 dollar bills, one of which, according to Ivy, was given to Rose. Defendant contends that the State's questions, addressed to her on cross examination, concerning arson and the fact that defendant's house burned down, violated Miss.R.Evi. 404(b). She argues that this series of questions attempts to show the commission of other crimes and was introduced to establish that the defendant was the kind of person who would commit the crime for which she was on trial here, citing: Robinson v. State, 497 So. 2d 440, 442 (Miss. 1986); Lancaster v. State, 472 So. 2d 363, 368 (Miss. 1985); Davis v. State, 377 So. 2d 1076, 1079 (Miss. 1979). In addition, defense notes that the "prior offense" must result in a conviction to be admissible, citing Elmore v. State, 510 So. 2d 127, 130 (Miss. 1987); and Lightsey v. State, 493 So. 2d 375, 379 (Miss. 1986). Pertinent portions of the colloquy were: This Court made the following observation in Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 743, 759 (Miss. 1984), decided prior to the adoption of Mississippi Rules of Evidence, and cited in the comments to MRE 404(b): Ms. Rose did not place her character in issue in this case. No witnesses were called to testify to her good character. The arson question was not posed to develop evidence of any criminal act with which she was charged. We have repeatedly held that the admission of evidence of unrelated crimes is reversible error, most recently in Houston v. State, 531 So. 2d 598, 605 (Miss. 1988). We find that the failure to sustain defendant's objection to this question, suggesting the commission of another crime, was error. The State contends that if the admission of this evidence be deemed error, it is harmless due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence against defendant. We do not agree. The only evidence presented was the testimony of the three co-defendants, all of whom were of dubious reputation. There is no gauge by which this court, on review, can assess the impact on the jury of the suggestion of the commission of the other crime. This error, together with the matter addressed in part IV of this opinion, has the cumulative effect of a denial to the defendant of a fair trial. Appellant contends that the court erred in allowing improper opinion testimony concerning differences or discrepancies in the stories of the co-defendants. The State introduced the confession of Toy Coleman into evidence. Sheriff Bryan testified that he had also taken the confessions of Joey Ivy and Johnny Fowler. The following exchange occurred after this testimony: The State cites Miss.R.Evid. 701, contending that this is proper opinion testimony. Rule 701 states: This Court's latest opinion dealing with lay opinion testimony is James Jackson v. State, 551 So. 2d 132 (Miss. 1989) which cites Whittington v. State, 523 So. 2d 966 (Miss. 1988). In Jackson the defendant was charged with the murder of his wife. The investigating officer testified that he had doubts about the defendant's story that a robbery had taken place and Mrs. Jackson was killed by an unknown assailant. The officer stated that he was unable to find any evidence that anyone, other than James Jackson, was present at the scene of the murder. Applying the two prong test of 701, this court concluded that the officer's opinion was (1) based on his personal perceptions, and (2) helpful to the determination of the important fact question of whether there was anyone else at the scene at the time of the murder. 551 So. 2d at 142. Jackson is distinguishable from this case. In Jackson, the opinion testimony was directly related to an issue in the case the presence of a third party at the murder scene. In the case at hand, the opinion testimony concerns the truthfulness of the prosecution's witnesses. As the majority opinion in Jackson so carefully points out, the witness' testimony was on a pertinent issue, and based on his own observations and investigation. Id. In U.S. v. Dotson, 799 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1986), interpreting F.R.E. 701, it was held reversible error to allow government agents to offer opinions to the truthfulness of the defendant and his witnesses where those opinions were based solely on the agent's investigation. The Dotson Court stated: In Whittington, the investigating officer expressed the opinion that, following his investigation he did not think Mrs. Whittington was "killed in the wreck". This court stated that the abolition of the ultimate issue rule does not result in the admission of all opinions. "It must be `helpful to a determination of the case.'" "Questions which would merely allow a witness to tell the jury what result to reach are not permitted. Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236 (5th Cir.1983)." 523 So. 2d at 975. The lay opinion testimony of Sheriff Bryan was inadmissible. He, in essence, told the jury that they were to believe the stories of the three co-defendants, despite discrepancies among their accounts of the theft of the compressor. There are two reasons that this type of testimony is unacceptable. First, it is more prejudicial than probative; second, it is not based on first hand knowledge. This court, in West v. State, 249 So. 2d 650 (Miss. 1971), recognized the danger of allowing a jury to be presented with what appears to be the "official" opinion of the police department that the defendant is guilty. In this case, the sheriff was allowed to express the opinion that the prosecution's witnesses were telling the truth when they implicated Deborah Rose. There is a very real danger that, due to his position as sheriff, he might unduly influence the jury when the time came to evaluate the testimony of the co-defendants. A defendant must be allowed to point out discrepancies in witnesses' accounts of events, and to have the jury determine whether those witnesses are truthful. The admission of this lay testimony prejudiced the defendant. When added to the error earlier discussed, we are persuaded that she is entitled to a new trial. Defendant filed a motion to compel pursuant to Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice 4.06 demanding statements of any informants as well as the "work product" of the prosecution. The State is not required to disclose names of informants unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or if a failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused, or if the informant was an eyewitness to the events constituting the charge against the defendant. Rule 4.06(b)(2); Garvis v. State, 483 So. 2d 312, 316 (Miss. 1986); Arnett v. State, 532 So. 2d 1003, 1008 (Miss. 1988). The court properly denied defendants motion. Appellant's submitted instruction reads as follows: The issue of whether the trial court properly denied this instruction is controlled by Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 1988) in which an identical instruction was requested and refused. This was Davis' sole issue on appeal of his conviction. In affirming that conviction, this court characterized the requested instruction as a "jury nullification" instruction, and held that although the jury does indeed have the power to acquit for any reason whatsoever, the defendant does not have the right to an instruction on that point. Courts that have considered this issue have almost uniformly held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to such instruction. 520 So. 2d at 494. The instruction was properly denied. Appellant's submitted instructions, D-14 and D-15 read as follows: Appellant contends that these instructions were taken from Gray v. State, 487 So. 2d 1304, 1308 (Miss. 1986) and were granted in that case, therefore should be granted in this case. *735 In Gray, this court held that an instruction which omitted necessary elements of conspiracy was not reversible error in that the omission was cured by subsequent instruction in which the missing element was included. Conspiracy is defined as: Conspiracy is the combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose. The agreement may be shown by circumstantial evidence. There must exist some evidence that a defendant associated himself with the venture. Peoples v. State, 501 So. 2d 424, 428 (Miss. 1987). The circuit judge in this case properly denied D-14. The last paragraph of the submitted instruction misstates the law. This paragraph states that the defendant must have agreed to steal the generator, by a more formal agreement than required by the cases cited above. Instructions S-1, S-2, and S-3, submitted by the State, adequately instructed the jury on the elements of conspiracy. Defendant initially objected to these instructions, but withdrew her objections, therefore the trial court did not err in refusing the proposed instruction which was offered to give the defendant's version of conspiracy. The court asked defense counsel if, in his opinion any element of the charge was missing from the State instructions, he responded "No, sir. I'm not making that argument." The denial of the requested instruction D-15 was at the discretion of the trial court. It was not abuse of that discretion to deny it. We remand for a new trial due to the errors found in assignments numbers two and four. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. PITTMAN, J., not participating.