 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wheeler v. State9/19/2002
my father up.
Q: Okay.
A: That's the one I pointed out anyway.
MR. NEELY: We're going to object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection will be sustained and the jury will be instructed to disregard that statement. Okay? What the witness said someone told her.
A: It wasn't - wasn't nobody told me. I seen him come to my house with that TV. And he was the one that beat my father up. That's the one I pointed out come to my house.
Wheeler objected again, and the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement made about who beat Clark. The sustained objections and instruction to the jury cured any harm in the statements made by Barbara. We have been clear that a "trial judge is in the best position for determining the prejudicial effect of an objectionable remark by either the prosecutor or a witness." Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591, 595 (Miss. 2001) (citing Perkins v. State, 600 So.2d 938, 940 (Miss. 1992)). "The jury is presumed to have followed the admonition of the trial judge to disregard the remark." Id. (citing Dennis v. State, 555 So.2d 679, 682-83 (Miss. 1989)). Also, the fact that the victim was Barbara's father and that she disliked Williams are credibility issues for the jury to weigh. See Sheffield, 749 So.2d at 127. We find that the trial court amply instructed the jury regarding Barbara's hearsay statements to correct any harmful effect they may have had.
IX. WHETHER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ERRORS GREATLY PREJUDICED WHEELER AND RENDERED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IMPOSSIBLE.
. Wheeler summarily states that the cumulative effect of all the errors he assigns prevented him from getting a fair trial. Again, he offers no argument or authority in support of his contention. Therefore, we decline discussion as the issue is not properly before us. See Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 216 (Miss. 1993) (citing Wright v. State, 540 So.2d 1 (Miss.1989) (claims with no citation to authority in support are not properly before the Court)). Notwithstanding, we have discussed each issue individually and find no cumulative violation of his right to a fair trial.
CONCLUSION
. We find that the trial court committed no reversible errors, that there was substantial evidence to support the convictions, and that none of Wheeler's rights were violated. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.
. COUNT I: CONVICTION OF ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN A FACILITY TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED. COUNT II: CONVICTION OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED. SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH SENTENCE IN COUNT I. COUNT III: CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE TO SERVE A TERM OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED. SENTENCE IN COUNT III SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCE IN COUNT I, APPELLANT IS ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS AND MAKE RESTITUTION OF $7500 TO THE ESTATE OF JAMES CLARK.
PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., WALLER, COBB, DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR.
|