247 So. 3d 1212
Miss.2018Background
- On March 6, 2011, multiple persons were shot outside the Creme De La Creme nightclub in Moss Point; several witnesses described the shooter as matching Dominic C. Robinson’s appearance. Darius Wright (who knew Robinson) identified Robinson as the shooter; a photo lineup ID and in-court ID followed.
- Robinson turned himself in three days later, invoked his right to counsel and gave no post-arrest statement; he later testified at trial claiming an alibi (he left before the shooting and went to Mobile).
- Indicted in August 2012, Robinson was tried in July 2014 on five aggravated-assault counts; the trial court dismissed two counts at the close of the State’s case and the jury convicted on three counts.
- Key contested trial rulings: court granted Instruction S-14A (eyewitness ID instruction referencing Wright), excluded Exhibit D-1 (a later order showing Wright’s reduced drug charge), and allowed cross-examination suggesting Robinson’s alibi was first revealed at trial.
- Post-trial issues raised on appeal included claims of improper jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, impermissible comment on post-Miranda silence, weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, pre-indictment delay, lost evidence, and alleged false testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury Instruction S-14A (eyewitness ID) | Instruction improperly emphasized Wright’s ID and commented on weight of evidence | Instruction correctly stated law that conviction can rest on a single eyewitness and left credibility to jury | Affirmed: instruction permissible; did not improperly direct weight and accurately stated law |
| Exclusion of Exhibit D-1 (Wright’s post-incident plea order) | Exhibit probative of Wright’s bias/interest (deal for leniency) under Rule 616 | Exhibit irrelevant to bias; admissibility argued under Rule 609 only; no foundation or proof of deal | Affirmed: exclusion proper; appellant failed to preserve Rule 616 theory and exhibit lacked necessary relevance/foundation |
| State’s cross-examination suggesting alibi first raised at trial (post-Miranda silence) | Question impermissibly penalized Robinson’s post-Miranda silence and impeached his alibi (Doyle violation) | Robinson failed to disclose alibi under URCCC 9.05; prosecutor’s question addressed discovery noncompliance, not silence | Affirmed: no plain error — distinction from Doyle/Emery because defendant offered alibi and failed to provide required pretrial notice |
| Verdicts against overwhelming weight of the evidence | Witness inconsistencies, weapon caliber differences, and alleged witness deals create unreliability | Conflicts go to credibility; multiple witnesses placed shooter as person thrown out earlier and Wright’s positive ID supports conviction | Affirmed: jury resolved credibility; verdicts not unconscionable or against overwhelming weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66 (Miss. 2010) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Manuel v. State, 667 So.2d 590 (Miss. 1995) (instruction may not comment on weight of evidence)
- Doby v. State, 532 So.2d 584 (Miss. 1988) (a conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-Miranda silence generally cannot be used to impeach defendant)
- Emery v. State, 869 So.2d 405 (Miss. 2004) (prosecutor’s use of post-Miranda silence to impeach can require reversal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for overturning verdict for weight of the evidence)
- McGrone v. State, 798 So.2d 519 (Miss. 2001) (test for State’s failure to preserve evidence and due process)