 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State2/4/1999
the evidence arrived fifty minutes after the initial entry. Smith, 419 So. 2d at 569. Captain Spears did not expand the search and he only seized those items which were pointed out as having been in plain view. Id. at 573. Also, as to Chief Joe Stewart, the arson investigator, there is no indication that his arrival was much later than Captain Spears. Chief Stewart took wood shavings from the floor at the direction of Captain Spears. Therefore, the circuit court was correct in finding that the third walk through the house and the ultimate seizure of the evidence were legally justified.
. For the foregoing reasons we find that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant's Motion to Suppress the evidence seized from Edith's residence. This assignment of error is without merit.
B.
. Taylor raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty. A denial of a motion for a directed verdict should not be disturbed on appeal unless viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party it can be found that reasonable, fair-minded persons could only find the defendant not guilty. Morgan v. State, 703 So. 2d 832, 835 (Miss. 1997) (quoting Hopson v. State, 625 So. 2d 395, 405 (Miss.1993)). In overruling Taylor's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case, the circuit court held that in viewing the evidence most favorable to the State the jury could find the defendant guilty of either murder or manslaughter. The evidence, most favorable to the State, showed, inter alia:
(1) Taylor had kicked Edith in the head earlier that day and was cussing at her.
(2) Edith and Taylor were alone in the house when Edith caught fire.
(3) Edith died as a result of the burns.
(4) The burns to Edith were the result of someone purposefully throwing an accelerant on her and igniting her.
(5) Edith indicated that Taylor was the one who poured something on her and set her afire.
(6) Witnesses smelled kerosene and saw matches and an open hurricane lamp close to where Edith burned.
Based on the foregoing evidence, this Court concludes that the circuit court was correct in holding that reasonable, fair-minded jurors could find Taylor guilty. Therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.
C.
. Taylor claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence the conviction will be upheld unless on the evidence, as viewed in the light most consistent with the verdict, no reasonable fair-minded juror could find the defendant guilty. Evans v. State, Nos. 93-DP-01173-SCT, 94-CA-00176, 1997 WL 562044, at *82 (Miss. Sept. 11, 1997) (quoting Taylor v. State, 672 So. 2d 1246, 1255 (Miss. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 486 (1996), reh'g denied, 117 S. Ct. 755 (1997) (quoting McFee v. State, 511 So. 2d 130, 133-34 (Miss. 1987))); Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 356 (Miss. 1997). In addition to the evidence presented on behalf of the State, the defendant offered the following evidence on his behalf:
(1) Dr. Sperry testified that it was his opinion that Edith's injuries were self-inflicted.
(2) Dr. Sperry also testified that because of her intoxicated state, the things Edith said were not necessarily related to reality.
(3) Ms. Joyner testified to impeach Ms. Delancey, stating that in previous interviews Ms. Delancey had not stated that Edith said anything was poured on her.
(4) Various witnesses testified that Edith had on several occasions discussed committing suicide and b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|