Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crook v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided April 10, 2012No. 2010-KA-01528-COAPublished

1DissentBarnes, J.

¶ 36. With all respect to the majority, I find this case is controlled by Maye v. State, 49 So.3d 1124 (Miss.2010) and the principles noted therein. I would, therefore, reverse Crook’s conviction and remand for a new trial before a properly instructed jury.

¶ 37. The trial court’s refusal of jury instruction D-10 resulted from the prosecution’s misrepresentation of controlling authority to the court. The prosecutor cited Miller v. State, 733 So.2d 846 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) and Booker v. State, 64 So.3d 988 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) as being critical of the “cool, calm light of after-developed facts”…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Manuel v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Maye v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Miller v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 1998
  4. Booker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API