Davenport v. State

The trial judge did not err in commenting on venue and the open-container charge after both the state and defense rested because the comments were made outside the jury's presence, the case was reopened without any reference to the judge's opinion, and the questions were then presented to the jury.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, co-defendants Mark Paul Davenport and William Gerald Walsh were convicted of possessing methamphetamine and an open container of alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle. Mr. Davenport was also convicted of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine and three counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony;1 however, Mr. Walsh was found not guilty on those charges.2 Because the charges against Davenport and Walsh arose from the same incident and set of facts, and because these two men were tried together, we have consolidated their separate appeals for review. In Case No. A10A1750, Mr. Davenport appeals his convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. Davenport also argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and a new trial on his claims.

In Case No. A10A1751, Mr. Walsh appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of an open container of alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and further that the trial court improperly commented on the issue of venue and the sufficiency of the evidence for the open-container violation, requiring reversal.

Davenport v. State

The trial judge did not err in commenting on venue and the open-container charge after both the state and defense rested because the comments were made outside the jury's presence, the case was reopened without any reference to the judge's opinion, and the questions were then presented to the jury.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report