Woods v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00759-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00759-SCT ; 2002-KA-00759-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-27-2004 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-79 - Limitation of cross-examination - Right to remain silent - Ineffective assistance of counsel Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED ON COUNT I OF ARMED ROBBERY AND COUNT II OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - SENTENCED TO SERVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FOR COUNT I AND TWENTY YEARS FOR COUNT II IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: CR 2001-298 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy Allen Woods, Jr. a/k/a Timothy Allen Woods, Sr. |
CAROL L. WHITE-RICHARD
STEPHEN NICK |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-79 - Limitation of cross-examination - Right to remain silent - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Woods was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment charging him with aggravated assault and armed robbery. Woods appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence of robbery Woods argues that the State’s proof on the robbery count was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. He focuses on the requirement in the armed robbery statute that the defendant shall feloniously take from the person the personal property of another and points out that the only evidence offered by the victim was a statement that Woods and his accomplice went through her pockets. There is no requirement in section 97-3-79 that the property taken have any particular value; only that it be personal property not belonging to the accused. While the evidence in this case may be classified as sparse, the evidence would fairly permit an inference that Woods purposely took from the victim a cigarette pack believed to contain contraband crack cocaine rocks through the use of a deadly weapon in the form of a knife. Issue 2: Cross-examination Woods argues that the court improperly limited his defense counsel in its efforts to impeach the victim’s credibility through showing her history of drug use. However, the record shows that the issues of the victim’s rather extensive history of drug abuse and the difficulties in her life attributable to that course of conduct were fully developed for the jury and that the jury had extensive information in that regard to make a reasoned evaluation of the worth of her testimony. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence of assault Woods argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of the aggravated assault charge, because it consisted entirely of the testimony of his co-defendant and the victim. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if found credible by the jury, is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a verdict of guilty. Here, the jury had the benefit of two witnesses having no apparent connection who both confirmed that Woods inflicted serious injuries on the victim by cutting her with a knife. Therefore, there is no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict. Issue 4: Right to remain silent Woods argues that a portion of the prosecuting attorney’s summation constituted an impermissible comment on the fact that he had exercised his right against self-incrimination in the period following his arrest. During cross-examination, Woods asserted that he had repeatedly attempted to inform law enforcement officers as to his version of events but that they refused to formally incorporate it into a report or to investigate it to see if it could be independently verified. The prosecutor’s assertion was that this scenario seemed highly unlikely and constituted cause to doubt Woods’s credibility as a witness on matters directly relating to the crime itself. These comments were plainly intended as a direct attack on Woods’s propensity for truthfulness rather than an indirect effort to cast Woods in a bad light for exercising his right to remain silent. He also argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to properly object to the State’s use of this tactic. Because of the compelling eyewitness testimony implicating Woods in the unfortunate events that led to this indictment, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
