Wortham v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-02135-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-02135-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Deliberate design instructions - Manslaughter instructions - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Limitation of cross-examination Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-17-2002 Appealed from: Stone County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: CONVICTED ON TWO COUNTS OF MURDER AND RECEIVED TWO CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2001-0059 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Lee (Willie) Wortham |
MACK A. BETHEA |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Deliberate design instructions - Manslaughter instructions - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Limitation of cross-examination |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Wortham was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Wortham argues that the State’s evidence was insufficient because it failed to prove that he acted with deliberate design and there was no eyewitness, no lab analysis on the blood, no confession, and no murder weapon. The evidence at trial was comprised of seven witnesses all of whom were offered by the State. Two of those witnesses testified that Wortham admitted to killing his wife and her child. Wortham also admitted that he made sure they were both dead. In addition, Wortham admitted that he lived in the mobile home where his wife and step-son were found. A knife used in such a vicious manner has been held sufficient in satisfying the element of deliberate design. Therefore, it was reasonable for the jury to ultimately conclude that Wortham had stabbed his wife and her son and that it was done with deliberate design. Issue 2: Deliberate design instructions Wortham argues the court erred in granting two instructions dealing with deliberate design. He argues that one of the instructions is not explicit enough because the jury was not specifically told under what circumstances Wortham’s acts would be reduced into lesser crimes. The exact language complained of has previously been found to be proper. Wortham argues that the other instruction led jurors to believe that deliberate design could occur instantly at the very moment of the fatal act. However, the instruction specifically stated that deliberate design could not be formed at the very moment of the fatal act. The instruction was a correct statement of the law. Issue 3: Manslaughter instructions Wortham argues that the court erred in refusing his manslaughter instructions. While Wortham is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without evidentiary foundation. There was no evidence that would entitle Wortham to have the jury instructed on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Issue 4: Circumstantial evidence instruction Wortham argues that the court erred in refusing his circumstantial evidence instructions. A judge is not required to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence where there is direct evidence of the crime. Here, there was direct evidence of Wortham’s guilt. Wortham admitted to no less than two people that he killed his wife and her child. Issue 5: Limitation of cross-examination During the examination of an investigator, Wortham’s attorney asked him if he was running for sheriff. The judge ruled that the question was irrelevant and immaterial, and Wortham argues this was error. The admission or exclusion of evidence must result in prejudice or harm, if a cause is to be reversed on that account. Wortham has not stated any prejudice or harm resulting from the trial court’s limitation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
