Robert E. Bridges v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-01078-COA
ROBERT E. BRIDGES
APPELLANT
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:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
6/15/2001
HON. MIKE SMITH
PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PAUL MCGERALD LUCKETT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
JAMES DANIEL SMITH
CRIMINAL - FELONY
BURGLARY OF A DWELLING - SENTENCED
TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A
FINE OF $5,000, RESTITUTION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $150.
AFFIRMED: 4/08/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Robert E. Bridges was convicted of burglary of a dwelling in the Circuit Court of Pike County,
Mississippi. He was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections and ordered to pay a fine and court costs. Aggrieved by his conviction, Bridges has
appealed and raised the following issues:
I. Whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
II. Whether the repeated biblical references by Mr. E. J. Williams resulted in an unfair trial for Bridges.
FACTS
¶2.
On July 8, 2000, Officer Gregory Patterson of the McComb Police Department investigated a
reported burglary at the home of Rev. and Mrs. E. J. Williams. Officer Patterson noticed that two windows
had been broken out, and there were palm prints on an interior table.
¶3.
According to Williams, the intruder gained entry to his home by breaking the dining room window.
The burglar apparently cut himself since there was blood on the glass. Once in the house, the burglar broke
into the master bedroom, and stole $30 from Williams' brief case.
¶4.
Officer Greg Martin, a crime scene analyst with the McComb Police Department, photographed
the crime scene, and lifted several latent prints from the glass, which were sent to the state crime lab for
identification. The lab fingerprint examiner testified that those identifiable prints matched the fingerprint card
of Robert E. Bridges.
¶5.
Williams testified that Bridges had been employed by him for about four weeks, but had been
discharged. According to Mrs. Williams, in a January 2001 conversation, she heard Bridges admit to her
husband that he broke into their home.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
I.
Whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
¶6.
Bridges contends that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight and sufficiency of the
evidence. He maintains that "the State relied heavily on fingerprints that were found inside Williams' home,"
which was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict. He also argues that none of the State's witnesses
2
were actual eyewitnesses to the incident. It should be noted that an actual eyewitness is not mandatory for
conviction. Freeman v. State, 228 Miss. 687, 697, 89 So. 2d 716, 720 (1956).
In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence,
this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse
only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new
trial. Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this
Court disturb it on appeal. As such, if the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence, then a new trial is proper.
Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 77 (¶14) (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted).
¶7.
In this instance, Bridges admitted that he broke one of the windows of the Williams' home. Mr.
Williams testified that Bridges admitted to breaking into his home:
A. And he -- then he said, I didn't break in there. And May said, yes, you did. I told you
not to -- not to break them windows. Then he said, I'm sorry. I wasn't intended [sic] to
break into your house. I'll pay you for your windows and I'll pay you for your brief case.
And I'll give you your money back when my income tax check come.
Mrs. Williams testified that she heard Bridges admit to her husband that he broke into their home. The
latent fingerprint examiner indicated that the fingerprints retrieved from the crime scene matched the prints
on the card bearing the name of Robert E. Bridges.
In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must consider all of
the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. The credible evidence consistent with
[a defendant'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. We are
authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the
offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors
could only find the accused not guilty.
McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) (citations omitted).
3
¶8.
Bridges argues that the evidence is insufficient because the testimony of the State's witnesses does
not establish all of the elements of the crime of burglary. Bridges does not state which element was absent
of support. He states that no one testified that they saw him break and enter Williams' home.
¶9.
However, Bridges admitted through his testimony, that he did in fact break a window at Williams'
home. According to the officers, Bridges' fingerprints were located on the glass and matched the
fingerprints on the card bearing Bridges' information from the police department. Williams and his wife both
testified that Bridges admitted that he committed the offense. That evidence was sufficient to allow a jury
to resolve issues of credibility against Bridges, and return a verdict of guilty. Alexander v. State, 811 So.
2d 272 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Unless, our review of the record leads us to conclude that no
rational juror could have found Bridges guilty, this Court is obligated to affirm. Id. at (¶13). In this case,
the record does not lead us to that conclusion.
II.
Whether the repeated biblical references by Mr. E. J. Williams resulted in an unfair trial
for Bridges.
¶10.
Bridges contends that repeated biblical references made by Williams resulted in him receiving an
unfair trial. During cross-examination, Williams was asked if he knew how Bridges' fingerprints came to
be in the house. Williams answered in the following manner:
BY THE WITNESS: No, sir. All I know that they came off the windows and a table
inside where the blood was on [sic]. I don't know if they went to the door and checked
there for the whole -- blood printed hand was on the door there. Blood printed hand was
in the master bedroom on my wife's closet door.
I wasn't the policeman who [sic] taken the fingerprints. And I don't believe that
Mr. Martin would just come up out of the blue sky to Mr. Bridges' fingerprints. I don't -I don't believe he would pin anything on him. I don't believe that he would come up and
show me a picture and ask me did I know a Robert Bridges out of the blue sky with
fingerprints and everything with the grand jury. Just a minute, sir.
4
And you said, no, I wasn't there when he done it. I wasn't no eye witness to see
him go in there.
But I will tell you this. I'm a man of God.
BY MR. LUCKETT (For the Defendant): Your Honor, we would ask that this –
BY THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. LUCKETT: –testimony be struck.
BY THE WITNESS: And if God would have –
BY MR. LUCKETT: Your Honor –
BY THE WITNESS: Just a minute.
BY THE COURT: Rev. Williams, when the lawyer objects you be quiet –
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
...
BY THE COURT: So let's go on until -- the motion is denied. But let's go on with Mr.
Luckett's cross-examination at this time.
¶11.
Bridges moved for a mistrial based on Williams' references to God, at which time the State
responded by saying that "I don't know how else a preacher describes himself as a man of God."
According to the State, Williams' credibility was being challenged regarding the accusations made by
Bridges' fiancée. The trial court agreed that "if he's trying to defend his credibility, I don't see anything
wrong with it. I fail to see how your client's been prejudiced in any shape, form, or fashion." Nevertheless,
the trial court offered to admonish the jury. Defense counsel unequivocally declined the circuit court's offer
to admonish the jury to disregard the testimony. Under these circumstances, we have held that there is no
error requiring reversal. Buckley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1354, 1357 (Miss. 1987).
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PIKE COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND PAY A FINE
5
OF $5,000 AND RESTITUTION OF $150 IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO PIKE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. BRIDGES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
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.
