Jackson v. State

The joint disposition of the indictments did not prejudice the defendant because evidence of the various, intertwined crimes would have been admissible against him had the indictments been tried separately.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found brothers Silas Jackson and Michael Phillips guilty of two counts each of armed robbery, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and one count of theft by receiving stolen property. Based on a separate indictment, the jury also found Jackson guilty of two additional counts of aggravated assault. Citing an error in the jury instructions, the trial court granted both defendants a new trial as to several charges. These appeals represent the defendants’ challenge to their convictions on the remaining charges. In Case Numbers A11A0875 and A11A0876, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in joining the two indictments for trial. He also asserts, without any supporting argument or authority, that the evidence against him was insufficient and that the trial court erred in admitting identification testimony. In Case Number A11A0877, Phillips claims, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court improperly restricted his use of a photograph at trial. He also argues that the State failed to produce a written witness statement in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U. S. 83 83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215 1963.

Because the trial court did not err in joining the two indictments for trial and Jackson has abandoned his other claims of error, we affirm Jackson’s convictions. As to Phillips, however, we find that the State committed a harmful Brady violation and that the trial court erred with respect to the photograph. Accordingly, although the evidence against him was sufficient, we reverse Phillips’s convictions and remand for a new trial. All other claims of error raised by Phillips are mooted by the grant of a new trial.

Jackson v. State

The joint disposition of the indictments did not prejudice the defendant because evidence of the various, intertwined crimes would have been admissible against him had the indictments been tried separately.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report