Burden v. State

The interviewing detective did not offer the defendant a hope of benefit or threaten to injure him in order to coerce his confession that he and his accomplice planned to rob the victim, that they hit and pepper sprayed him and that they tried to take his money.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Ishmael Burden guilty of aggravated assault. The trial court entered judgment of conviction, imposed a 15-year sentence and denied a motion for new trial. Burden appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in overruling an objection to a leading question by the state, failing to give a jury charge on simple assault as a lesser included offense, refusing to allow evidence of prior acts of violence by the victim and admitting Burden’s confession into evidence. However, the challenged question was not leading, any error in the jury charge was harmless, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior acts by the victim and the trial court did not clearly err in admitting the confession. We therefore affirm.

Construed in favor of the verdict, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, the evidence shows that on March 7, 2011, Burden called a taxicab company for a ride, giving a false phone number and home address. At approximately 1:30 a.m., the taxi driver dispatched to the location found Burden and an accomplice waiting near the address. Once inside the cab, Burden and his accomplice attacked the driver. Burden hit the driver on the head as his accomplice sprayed the driver with pepper spray. During the attack, Burden and the accomplice demanded money from the driver and tried to reach into his pockets. When the driver began to drive erratically, Burden and his accomplice jumped out of the moving vehicle and fled. The police were contacted and subsequently apprehended Burden and the accomplice. Burden gave a statement to the police, confessing that he and his accomplice had planned to rob the taxi driver, that they had hit and pepper-sprayed him and that they had tried to take his money.

Burden v. State

The interviewing detective did not offer the defendant a hope of benefit or threaten to injure him in order to coerce his confession that he and his accomplice planned to rob the victim, that they hit and pepper sprayed him and that they tried to take his money.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report