Stone v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01722-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01722-SCT ; 2010-KA-01722-SCT ; 2010-KA-01722-SCT ; 2010-KA-01722-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Miranda violation - Illegal sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior threats - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Kitchens and King, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Dickinson, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Joined In Part by Lamar and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2010 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Jim S. Pounds Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR10-085 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ted W. Stone a/k/a Ted Stone |
RICHARD SHANE MCLAUGHLIN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER, SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Miranda violation - Illegal sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior threats - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ted Stone was convicted of aggravated assault and was sentenced to twenty years’ incarceration and a $4,000 fine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Stone’s ineffective-assistance claim contains numerous allegations outside the record. Such claims are more properly the subject of a petition for post-conviction relief. Issue 2: Miranda violation As Stone raised his claim of a Miranda violation for the first time on appeal, it is procedurally barred. Also, the claim is without merit, as Stone’s apology to the victim was not the product of custodial interrogation. Issue 3: Illegal sentence The record shows that the victim was seventy-three years old at the time of the aggravated assault. Since Stone’s sentence was within the statutory limits for the aggravated assault of a person who is sixty-five years of age or older, his argument that his sentence is illegal is without merit. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Stone argues that the State failed to prove the essential elements required for an aggravated-assault conviction. Photos of the victim, taken by paramedics after the assault, depict a missing clump of hair, multiple scalp lacerations, and the victim’s shirt soaked with blood from her head wounds. A doctor testified that her head wounds were caused by “dangerous force” serious enough that he was concerned about “internal injuries[,]” and that “[s]he was very lucky she just sustained a laceration to her head.” Stone used a metal walking cane to beat the victim, inflicting lacerations, bruises, and whelps on her head and back. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that Stone’s metal walking cane was used as a deadly weapon, thus fulfilling the elements required for a conviction of aggravated assault. Issue 5: Prior threats The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of Stone’s history of threats and violence directed toward the victim. Pursuant to M.R.E. 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is admissible for purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Evidence of other threats and assaults of the victim before the assault at issue was probative in determining that Stone purposely or knowingly acted on this occasion. The evidence was also probative for other noncharacter purposes, including Stone’s intent, motive, and common plan or scheme. The trial court did not abuse its considerable discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. The trial judge conducted the M.R.E. 403 balancing test and relied on his own sound judgment to reach the conclusion that the evidence was admissible. Even if the trial court had erroneously admitted the evidence, its error would not warrant reversal, since the evidence against Stone at trial was overwhelming. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
