Opinion ID: 1606283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant petrice roach's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the state's case-in-chief.

Text: ¶ 28. At the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Petrice Roach due to insufficient evidence that she was in possession of the drugs. However, Roach argues that because the trial court failed to grant his wife's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief, his Sixth- and Fourteenth-Amendment rights to compulsory process were violated. According to Roach, had the trial court granted the directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief, Petrice, no longer facing the threat of prosecution, would have provided exculpatory testimony for Roach. ¶ 29. Roach understandably cites no authority for his standing to claim trial-court error for failure to grant a co-defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Instead, Roach cites an Illinois appellate-court decision which found that the defendant had not shown how he was prejudiced due to the trial court's failure to grant the codefendants' motion to dismiss until after the defense had rested. People v. Ramirez, 244 Ill.App.3d 136, 184 Ill.Dec. 524, 613 N.E.2d 1116 (1993). ¶ 30. Thus, attached to Roach's amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict/new trial was Petrice's signed post-trial affidavit in which she stated, under oath, inter alia: At the conclusion of the state's case my attorney requested a dismissal of the charges against me, and that motion was denied with comment from the bench. During the case for the defense, I wanted to testify, but after consulting with my attorney and relying on his advise (sic) asserted my right not to do so. The reason I did not testify was that the charges were pending against me. If the charges against me had been dismissed at the conclusion of the state's case I would have testified on behalf of Jimmie Roach. If I had testified I would have confirmed and corroborated the fact that John Henry Clark Pee Wee was in the house at the time I exited the house and was gone from the house after law enforcement arrived and conducted their search. I would have also testified that at the time I left the house just prior to the arrival of law enforcement, there had been no discussion of drugs, and I had not seen any drugs or suspicious activity in the house while I was there. I would have also testified that I had never seen the drugs which were introduced as exhibits at the trial. ¶ 31. However, there is no need to consider the application of an Illinois appellate-court case in order to decide this issue. ¶ 32. The record reveals that after the State rested its case-in-chief, the trial court denied the respective motions for a directed verdict by Jimmie Roach and Petrice Roach. Immediately after the denial of these motions, the trial court took up an evidentiary issue concerning Roach's late production of photographs of the Roach residence taken the previous afternoon, as well as a schematic diagram of the floor plan of the house. Once the proceedings reconvened in open court before the jury, the attorneys for Roach and Petrice made their opening statements to the jury. In his case-in-chief, Roach called Clark, Cynthia Lawson (Petrice's sister, who was one of the four individuals standing in the yard when law enforcement officials arrived at the Roach residence on the day in question), and Joe Pate, also in the yard on the day in question. ¶ 33. After Pate testified, the trial judge was made aware of the fact that the defendants would most likely not call any additional witnesses, and that it was time for the defendants to announce to the court their intentions concerning whether they would testify. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial judge dutifully advised Roach and Petrice, inter alia, of their rights to testify or not testify, based on their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. In the end, both Roach and Petrice, through counsel, announced to the trial court that they would not testify in their own behalf. Thereafter, Roach, through counsel, announced in open court before the jury that that he rested his case-in-chief. Petrice, through counsel, then announced that she rested her case-in-chief. The trial court then informed the jury that they would be put in recess for the remainder of the day, to return the following morning. ¶ 34. After the jury left for the day, the trial court heard each defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and the trial court denied Roach's motion but granted Petrice's motion, thus releasing her. The trial judge then conducted a jury-instruction conference. Once court was reconvened the next morning, the trial judge read the instructions to the jury, the attorneys made their closing arguments to the jury, and the jury retired to deliberate, eventually returning guilty verdicts against Roach on both counts of the indictment. ¶ 35. Absent from this procedural scenario is any effort on the part of Roach, during the trial, to make a proffer to the trial judge, outside the presence of the jury, as to what Petrice would have testified to if called as a witness in Roach's case-in-chief. Also absent from this procedural scenario is any plea to the trial judge as to the perceived harmful effect on Roach of the trial judge's denial of Petrice's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief. [9] Finally, also absent is any effort on Roach's part to call Petrice as a witness in open court during his case-in-chief and to ask her questions, the answers to which (in Roach's mind) would have been beneficial to his case. Roach could have called Petrice as a witness in his case-in-chief, notwithstanding the fact that he believed she would invoke her constitutional right to remain silent on some or even all of the questions propounded to her. ¶ 36. In Hall v. State, 490 So.2d 858 (Miss.1986), the defendant attempted to call as a witness Arnold Jones, who was a charged accomplice in the armed robbery for which Hall was on trial. Id. at 859. The trial judge permitted Hall's attorney to question Jones outside the presence of the jury. Id. Jones refused to answer questions concerning the robbery, but Jones did answer certain questions describing Wayne Lampkin as being involved in the robbery. Hall's defense was that Lampkin was the perpetrator of the robbery. Id. The trial judge refused to allow Hall the opportunity to put Jones on the witness stand in front of the jury to either answer questions or claim his right to remain silent in the presence of the jury. Id. On appeal, this Court reversed Hall's conviction and remanded this case for a new trial, stating: The right of a defendant to call a witness when it is known that the witness would claim the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions has been previously addressed by this Court. In Stewart v. State, 355 So.2d 94 (Miss. 1978), we held it was reversible error to refuse to permit the defendant to call a witness to the stand and question him in the presence of the jury even though it had been demonstrated that the witness would refuse to answer most of the questions on grounds of self-incrimination. See also, Coleman v. State, 388 So.2d 157 (Miss.1980). We are of the opinion Jones' testimony describing the appearance and characteristics of Wayne Lampkin was relevant to the determination of who committed the robbery. Jones should have been permitted to testify in the presence of the jury and either answer those relevant questions or claim his Fifth Amendment rights. Hall, 490 So.2d at 859. See also Edmonds v. State, 955 So.2d 787, 793-95 (Miss.2007). ¶ 37. In the end, we find that the trial court will not be placed in error on an alleged untimely grant of a motion for a directed verdict in favor of a codefendant, based on the other codefendant's compulsory-process argument under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. This issue is thus without merit.