Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: WAS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE (5)(b) CONSTITUTIONALLY UNRELIABLE, PREJUDICIAL AND INSUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THE JURY TO CONSIDER ITS APPLICABILITY?

Text: During the sentencing phase Investigator Burns testified he questioned Frank, Sr. on February 16, 1983, at the Corinth Police Department. After having executed a waiver of rights, Frank, Sr. stated his date of birth was June 23, 1923, and that he had previously used the name James Kenna. Kenna was the name of his adoptive parents. Frank, Sr. first argues the introduction of this statement violated his right to counsel. However, we find nothing in the record to suggest the statement was made without an intelligent waiver of Cabello's Miranda rights. The state next introduced copies of a bill of information and of court minutes showing one James Kenna with the birth date of June 23, 1923, had been convicted of armed robbery on January 5, 1955. Officer Burns also testified he asked the defendant when he had changed his name from Kenna to Cabello and had received an indefinite answer. In our opinion the evidence was sufficiently identified to warrant the submission of aggravating circumstance (5)(b), prior conviction of another capital offense or of a felony involving use or threat of violence to the person, to the jury. [2] Frank, Sr. further complains about the admission of the mug shot from the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The photograph is attached to a document of certification from the Louisiana Department of Corrections and clearly shows the words La. State Pen., the number 44845, and the date January 16, 1958. The use of mug shots at trial is generally prohibited on the basis that evidence of other crimes perpetrated by the accused is not admissible. Sloane v. State, 437 So.2d 16, 18 (Miss. 1983). However, this principle loses significance in the sentencing phase of a capital case, when A prior conviction `of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person' is admissible ... as an aggravating circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining punishment. Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Miss. 1977). In this case the objective of the admission of the photograph was to prove Frank, Sr. had been convicted of the prior offense under the name James Kenna. Thus the conviction itself was not something to be withheld from the jury as it would have been in a trial on the issue of guilt. We are of the opinion there was no error in the admission of the photograph.