Oswalt v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01696-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01696-SCT ; 2002-KA-01696-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-16-2004
Opinion Author: Thomas, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Arson - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2002
Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court
Judge: Henry L. Lackey
Disposition: COUNT I ARSON, COUNT II ARSON: SENTENCED ON COUNT I TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND ON COUNT II TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: James M. Hood, III
Case Number: HK2002-16

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Ronnie G. Oswalt




STEVEN E. FARESE DAVID LEE ROBINSON



 

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: Arson - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Ronnie Oswalt was convicted of two counts of arson. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Oswalt argues that the evidence was insufficient. A threat alone is insufficient to support a conviction of arson. Something more than a threat must link a defendant with the setting of a fire. In this case, it was the fire investigator's opinion the fires had been deliberately set. This does not connect Oswalt with the fires in any fashion. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crimes and no witnesses who saw him in the vicinity of either premises around the time the fires were ignited. The only apparent evidence tending to link Oswalt with the fires is a statement he may have made to his mother-in-law on the morning of the blazes. Because this evidence is insufficient, the judgment is reversed and rendered.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court