Robert Cates v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00534-COA
ROBERT D. CATES A/K/A ROBERT CATES
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
01/28/2000
HON. MIKE SMITH
LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LESA HARRISON BAKER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
J. DANIEL (DANNY) SMITH
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF GRAND LARCENY
AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, WHICH WAS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE
YEARS PROBATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
THE DEFENDANT PAY COURT COST, $3,600
RESTITUTION TO THE VICTIM AND $1,000
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
AFFIRMED - 8/13/2002
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
9/3/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
Procedural History
¶1. Robert Dean Cates was indicted for burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny by the grand jury of
Lincoln County. The State filed for and received an order of nolle prosequi on the burglary charge. The trial
for the grand larceny charge against Cates proceeded and he was convicted. The trial judge sentenced
Cates to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, suspended for five years of
probation. Cates was also required to pay restitution to the victim and attorney's fees in the amount of $1,
000.
¶2. Aggrieved, Cates perfected his appeal and comes before this Court citing only one issue for review:
was the evidence legally sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty?
¶3. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the lower court.
Statement of the Facts
¶4. On or about March 15, 1999, Ms. Beatrice Holmes left her home with her sister, Ms. Windburn, to
visit in a neighboring town. The ladies returned to Brookhaven on March 16, 1999, when Ms. Holmes
found her home burglarized. A safe, located inside a closet in one of her bedrooms, was open with
approximately $2,000 in cash stolen along with several pieces of old coin money and seven rings. A piggy
bank containing coins was also stolen from a different bedroom. The investigation of the crime scene did not
recover fingerprints or any other direct evidence. The home was not ransacked and there was no evidence
of forced entry into the home.
¶5. The Lincoln County Police Department determined that the perpetrator entered the home with a key
and had to have access to the combination of the safe. Testimony revealed that only three people had a key
to the home and knowledge of the safe's combination: Ms. Holmes, her sister, Ms. Windburn and Ms.
Holmes' son, Cates.
¶6. Cates voluntarily told the police that he had entered his mother's home on the day in question. He was
aware that she may be out of town, but he testified that she often said she was leaving when she would
change her mind and not go. Cates testified that he used the phone in the front of the home and never
ventured to the back of the house. After Cates left his mother's house, he traveled to Jackson to visit with
his children and then to Vicksburg to gamble at the casino boats.
¶7. Cates is a self-employed carpenter, painter and home repair man. His estranged wife testified that he
has had a problem in the past keeping a steady job and that he intermittently gambled with her or his mother
at casinos. Both Cates and his estranged wife testified that Holmes would support them financially whenever
they asked for it. Ms. Holmes corroborated this testimony.
¶8. As stated, there is no direct evidence linking Cates to the grand larceny, the only crime he was charged
with. The State successfully relied solely on circumstantial evidence for the conviction.
Legal Analysis
I. WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY?
¶9. The sole argument presented on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in denying
Cates's renewed motion for directed verdict after the presentation of all relevant evidence. His argument is
that the State did not meet its burden of proof for the required elements of grand larceny. Section 97-17-41
of the Mississippi Code specifies the elements of the crime. Subsection (1)(a) states: "[e]very person who
shall be convicted of taking and carrying away, feloniously, the personal property of another, of the value of
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars . . . or more, shall be guilty of grand larceny." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-41
(Supp. 2001).
¶10. Our standard for reviewing challenges to convictions based on sufficiency of the evidence is well
established. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated:
[T]he sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to
the State. The credible evidence consistent with [Cates's] guilt must be accepted as true. The
prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from
the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved by the
jury.
McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) (citations omitted). We reverse when, with respect
to an element of the offense charged, the evidence is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only
find the accused not guilty. Id.; Wetz v. State, 503 So. 2d 803, 808 (Miss. 1987).
¶11. We are of the opinion that the facts in the case at bar do not meet the McClain standard requiring
reversal. There was sufficient evidence presented that a reasonable and fair-minded juror could and did find
that Cates was the sole perpetrator involved in the case. He had a key to the house and he knew the
combination to the safe. Testimony from Cates's estranged wife, his mother, his aunt and from Cates himself
corroborated that Cates knew the combination to the safe and that he had opened the safe numerous times
for his mother. Furthermore, Cates admitted to being in the home on the day in question and to gambling the
same night, although he testified that it had been "maybe a week, maybe a month" since he last worked. The
jury was the sole fact finder in the case and we do not sit as a new jury and reevaluate the evidence. As
stated in Henson v. Roberts:
The demeanor or bearing, the tone of voice, the attitude and appearance of the witnesses, all are
primarily for inspection and review by the jury. The jury not only has the right and duty to determine
the truth or falsity of the witnesses, but also has the right to evaluate and determine what portions of
the testimony of any witness it will accept or reject; therefore unless it is clear to this Court that the
verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the credible testimony, this [C]ourt will not set aside
the verdict of a jury.
Henson v. Roberts, 679 So. 2d 1041, 1045 (Miss. 1996) (quoting Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Rawson,
222 So. 2d 131, 134 (Miss. 1969)).
¶12. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the State is required to prove the defendant's guilt not
only beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with
innocence. McRee v. State, 732 So. 2d 246, 250 (¶14) (Miss. 1999). Cates attempted to elicit testimony
from the State's witnesses to produce doubt in the juror's minds. The jury was provided an instruction as to
the required burden of proof placed on the State and it chose to convict Cates. Viewing the evidence in light
most consistent with the verdict, we rule that the evidence was sufficient.
¶13. Cates relies upon McRee v. State as supporting authority. McRee, 732 So. 2d 246, 249-50 (¶¶1318) (Miss. 1999). In McRee, the defendant was originally convicted on a burglary charge based solely on
circumstantial evidence. Id. at 247 (¶¶1-2). This Court affirmed the conviction but was reversed by the
Mississippi Supreme Court. Id.
¶14. The evidence against McRee was that two men were seen driving in a vehicle which was later
determined to be owned by McRee, the victim had allegedly seen that same vehicle in the neighborhood
earlier on the morning of the crime, a neighbor saw the vehicle drive past the home twice and saw the
vehicle drive to the back of the home. Id. at 247-48 (¶3-7). The neighbor asked McRee what his business
was there and McRee responded that he was looking for a girl that lived there. Id. The neighbor told
McRee that no one there fit the description of the girl and McRee left the premises. Id. After the victims
returned, they found their home had been burglarized. Id.
¶15. The supreme court reversed this case based upon "the circumstantial evidence . . . was insufficient to
prove that McRee was involved in this burglary to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis." Id. at
250 (¶18).
¶16. The McRee case is simply not binding authority on the case at bar. Cates was not tried on the burglary
charge. Had he been tried and convicted for burglary based upon the same circumstantial evidence
presented in the grand larceny trial, we would have no choice but to reverse the lower court based on
McRee. The charge of burglary is a much more difficult crime for the State to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt. Burglary consists of the breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another with the intent to
commit a crime. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-23 (Supp. 2001). For the crime of grand larceny, the State
need only to prove that Cates took the personal property of another which had a value of two hundred and
fifty dollars or more. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-41(Supp. 2001). The evidence shows that Cates was one
of three people with a key to the home, Cates was in the home on the day in question, Cates knew the
combination to the safe in the home, Cates had money to gamble, although testimony revealed that it had
been a while since he worked last, and the other two people with keys to the home were together in a
different town on the day in question and did not have the opportunity to enter the home. We can not say
that this evidence fails to meet the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every
reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. McRee at 250 (¶14). Therefore, we affirm the conviction
and sentence of the lower court.
¶17. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WHICH WAS
SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF PROBATION AND TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,600 IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
LINCOLN COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY,
JJ., CONCUR. SOUTHWICK AND KING P.JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
