John Ed Oliver, II v. State of Mississippi
234 So. 3d 443
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Nov. 16, 2013, Christian Rone let John Ed Oliver II borrow his cellphone while skateboarding; Oliver then refused to return it and drove off with the phone.
- Rone testified Oliver pulled a gun from the car, cocked it, pointed it at him, and continued pointing as Oliver drove off; Rone said he felt immediate fear and was thrown from the vehicle when Oliver drove away.
- Police recovered Rone’s phone at Oliver’s residence; Oliver initially denied a gun and later said a passenger (Hubbard) had a gun that was returned to a friend. Oliver testified Hubbard displayed but did not cock or point the gun; Oliver admitted taking the phone and being intoxicated.
- Oliver was tried only on Count II (armed robbery), convicted, and sentenced to seven years plus eight years post-release supervision; his post-trial motions were denied.
- On appeal Oliver challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, arguing Rone voluntarily relinquished the phone and fear did not precede the taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Oliver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was taking by putting victim in fear of immediate injury? | Rone was placed in immediate fear when Oliver exhibited/cocked the gun; the taking was completed when Oliver drove off with the phone. | The phone was voluntarily relinquished before fear; fear only arose after the taking, so no armed robbery. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient — fear by exhibition of a deadly weapon effectuated the taking. |
| Weight of the evidence: Was verdict against overwhelming weight? | Jury credibility determination reasonable; testimony shows repeated demands for return and fear caused by gun display. | Verdict against weight because taking was voluntary and not by fear; at most larceny or aggravated assault. | Denial of new-trial motion affirmed: verdict not so contrary to overwhelming evidence to warrant reversal. |
| Proper offense: Should conviction be reduced to larceny? | (State) Armed robbery charge supported by evidence of fear-induced taking. | (Dissent) Evidence better supports larceny; gun display played no part in taking. | Majority rejects reduction; dissent would reverse and remand for petit larceny sentencing. |
| Credibility of victim’s reaction: Does victim’s clinging to car negate fear? | Victim’s subjective fear is credible despite his actions; jurors may credit his testimony. | Victim’s actions (grabbing car) show lack of fear when gun displayed. | Majority: jurors could reasonably find victim was placed in fear; credibility for jury to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Wales v. State, 73 So.3d 1113 (Miss. 2011) (elements of armed robbery)
- Clayton v. State, 759 So.2d 1169 (Miss. 1999) (fear must precede relinquishment; reversal where fear occurred after taking)
- Register v. State, 97 So.2d 919 (Miss. 1957) (force or fear must be means of taking, not a consequence)
- Davis v. State, 75 So.3d 569 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (either violence or fear suffices unless indictment specifies one)
- Williams v. State, 64 So.3d 1029 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to jury on witness credibility)