Ledford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-02144-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-02144-SCT ; 2002-KA-02144-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Voyeurism - Closing argument - Lesser-included offense instruction - Flight instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Denied Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-10-2002 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: CONVICTED OF VOYEURISM AND SENTENCED, AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER, TO SERVE FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND ORDERED TO PAY A $10,000 FINE AS WELL AS $250 IN COURT COSTS. District Attorney: Rick Mitchell Case Number: 14232 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andrew David Ledford |
DAN W. DUGGAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Voyeurism - Closing argument - Lesser-included offense instruction - Flight instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrew Ledford was found guilty of voyeurism. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to five years; to pay court cost, fees, and assessments of $250; and to pay a fine of $10,000 within two years of his release. Ledford appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Closing argument Ledford argues that a statement made by the State during closing argument regarding his unzipped pants prevented him from receiving a fair trial. When an objection is sustained and the court admonishes the jury to disregard the statement, there is usually no error absent unusual circumstances. Here, the court instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's statements. Issue 2: Lessor-included offense instruction Ledford argues that the court erred in failing to grant a lesser-included offense instruction for trespassing, because there was an evidentiary basis to support the instruction. In order for Ledford to have been entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction, he must show evidence in the record from which a jury could, other than by mere surmise, find him not guilty of the crime with which he was charged and at the same time, find him guilty of a lesser-included offense. Ledford did not testify as to why he was on the property. He told the police officer after he was caught that someone had dropped him off at the apartment complex and that he was meeting a female friend. There is a lack of evidence to show that Ledford was guilty of a trespass. Even if he was legally on the property at the request of his female friend, he was still seen peeping into a window, was chased for at least 250 yards, and was caught with his zipper down and underwear exposed. Issue 3: Flight instruction Ledford argues that the court erred in granting the flight instruction. A flight instruction is appropriate where the defendant's flight is unexplained and where the circumstance of that flight has considerable probative value. Here, there is no explanation as to why Ledford ran nor does Ledford produce any explanation. Furthermore, the circumstances, including the time of night and a witness seeing Ledford peeping into a window, clearly show that Ledford's flight had considerable probative value. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Ledford argues that the evidence was insufficient. However, he was seen peeping into an apartment window; he ran upon hearing someone approach; he ran from a police officer; he was caught with his zipper down; and he claimed to have been dropped off to meet a friend, but he never revealed the friend's name and his car with the keys in it was found on the property. Therefore, sufficient evidence existed for reasonable and fair-minded jurors to find Ledford guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
