Boleyn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01489-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01489-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-17-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Weathersby rule - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-18-2010 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIFTEEN TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2006-21-KR2 |
|
| Note: | Oral Argument held 5/17/2012. However, video file not supplied to the Judicial Data Project. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Belinda Boleyn |
CARRIE A. JOURDAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter - Weathersby rule - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Belinda Boleyn was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years, with fifteen years to serve. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weathersby rule Belinda argues that the trial judge erred in failing to grant her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial under the Weathersby rule. The Weathersby rule provides that where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. Here, the physical evidence contradicts the defendant’s version of events. Belinda stated that her husband grabbed her around the neck and squeezed as hard as he could. He shoved her around and tackled her while striking her about the head. In contrast, photographs taken by officers a few hours after the shooting reveal no bruising, scratches, or cuts on Belinda’s neck, arms, or face. Further, though Belinda claimed she was “scared to death” during the incident, she followed her husband through the house and perpetuated their argument for fifteen to twenty minutes. Because the physical evidence conflicts with Belinda’s statement to police, this case was properly found to fall outside of the Weathersby rule and her guilt was for the jury to decide. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it was not error for the jury to reject the defendant’s theory of self-defense. The reasonableness of Belinda’s action was a factual determination for the jury. Even if the jury believed her version of events, it could have reasonably determined that she was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Issue 2: Closing argument Belinda argues that the State improperly argued, in its closing remarks, that she had not proven self-defense. Because there was no contemporaneous objection to this argument at trial, the issue is waived on appeal. Further, the record shows that the State argued self-defense was not supported by the evidence presented. This was a proper comment on the evidence in closing argument. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel The merits of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal should be addressed only when the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. Belinda makes much of the fact that certain witnesses were not called to testify, that certain questions were not asked at voir dire, and that certain documents were not entered into evidence. But counsel’s choice of whether or not to call witnesses or ask certain questions falls within the ambit of trial strategy and will not support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Further, the documents Belinda references are not part of the trial record. Thus, relief on this issue is denied without prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
