 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop v. State2/8/2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/27/1998
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENNETH L. THOMAS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: EMBEZZLEMENT: SENTENCED TO A TERM OF 10 YEARS IN THE MDOC
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/08/2000
. Maurice Bishop was convicted of embezzlement by a Bolivar County Circuit Court jury. Bishop appeals asserting that the verdict of the jury was against the great weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in limiting the cross-examination of a prosecution witness and in not giving a lesser-included-offense instruction on petit larceny. We find no merit to these assignments and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
. Idella Taylor purchased a riding lawnmower on May 10, 1997. At some point during the summer, the lawnmower quit working properly. There is some evidence that the starter had been stolen. Taylor asked Maurice Bishop, a neighborhood friend, if he could repair it. Bishop offered to take the lawnmower to a repair shop. In late August, Bishop, accompanied by a friend, went to Taylor's house and picked up the lawnmower. Bishop never returned it.
. When Taylor began to inquire about her lawnmower, Bishop assured her that it was being repaired and that he would bring it to her house when repairs were completed. Bishop had in fact pawned the lawnmower approximately three days after he had picked it up from Taylor's house. In those three days Bishop fixed the mower and then pawned it for $150.
. Taylor discovered that her lawnmower was in the pawn shop and notified the police. After Taylor reported the incident to the police, Bishop allegedly went back to the pawn shop and told the manager that the lawnmower was not his, but the owner owed him money for the repairs and that was the reason he pawned it. The police picked the mower up and returned it to Taylor.
. Bishop was arrested, indicted and tried for embezzlement in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-19 (Rev. 1994). Following a jury trial Bishop was found guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment as a habitual offender. He appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Weight and sufficiency of the evidence
. Bishop argues that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in not granting any one of the variety of peremptory motions that he made during the trial. Bishop alleges that the evidentiary defect is that the State failed to show that Bishop intended to do anything other than recover the money that he allegedly expended to repair the mower.
. The trial court has discretionary authority to set aside a jury's verdict and order a new trial only where the court is convinced that the verdict of the jury is so contrary to the weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would be the sanction of unconscionable injustice. Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 816, 819 (Miss. 1989). Further, a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when there is an absence of evidence on one or more elements of the offense. McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). Bishop argues that the State failed to prove that Bishop had the necessary intent to commit the crime of embezzlement. However, the State produced evidence that Bishop took the lawnmower with permission from Idella Taylor for the purpose of repairing it. Testimony indicated that approximately three to four days after he picked up the lawnmower he pawned it for $150. The State also had the manager of the pawn shop testify that Bishop only told him that the lawnmower was not his aft
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|