Hight v. State

Defendant's sentence was not cruel and unusual, because sentencing within statutory limits is constitutional.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Ronald Hight appeals from his recidivist conviction of burglary1 two counts, theft by taking2 four counts, and criminal trespass,3 contending that the trial court erred by 1 admitting certain evidence of similar transactions, 2 denying his motion for a mistrial after jurors viewed him in restraints, 3 ruling that he received effective assistance of counsel, 4 failing to exercise discretion in sentencing him to serve the maximum sentence, and 5 imposing a cruel and unusual sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict,4 the evidence shows that Hight and two accomplices broke into two houses, each on separate daytime occasions in October 2007, and damaged property and stole items including a total of thirty firearms, $12,000 in cash, various electronics, tools, and assorted personal items. Hight and his accomplices were arrested and charged with crimes based on the burglaries; both accomplices testified against Hight, who was convicted and now appeals.

1. Hight contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two similar burglaries he had participated in because they were not sufficiently similar to the indicted acts. We disagree. Evidence of similar crimes or transactions is admissible where its relevance to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct, outweighs its prejudicial impact. Before evidence of prior crimes is admissible, the trial court must determine that the State has affirmatively shown that: 1 the State seeks to admit evidence of the independent offenses or acts for an appropriate purpose; 2 there is sufficient evidence that the accused committed the independent offenses or acts; and 3 there is sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offenses or acts and the crimes charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.5 The trial court’s determination on the admissibility of similar transaction evidence should be upheld unless it is an abuse of discretion.6

Hight v. State

Defendant's sentence was not cruel and unusual, because sentencing within statutory limits is constitutional.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report