Knight v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01255-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01255-COA ; 2001-CT-01255-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder & Aggravated assault - Mistrial - Discovery violation - Comment on race - Closing argument - Peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McMillin, C.J. Dissenting Author : Bridges, J. Dissent Joined By : King, P.J., Irving and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-06-2001 Appealed from: Union County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: COUNT I: MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT; COUNT II: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE, SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. District Attorney: James M. Hood, III Case Number: UK-2000-083 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edward Stafford Knight, Sr. |
ANTHONY L. FARESE
DAVID LEE ROBINSON |
||
| 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: | Murder & Aggravated assault - Mistrial - Discovery violation - Comment on race - Closing argument - Peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edward Knight was convicted of murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life the murder conviction and to twenty years for the aggravated assault charge, with five years suspended and fifteen years to serve, the sentences to run concurrently. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial Knight argues that his motions for mistrial should have been granted. He first argues that the State improperly allowed a police officer to testify about a statement Knight made to him which had not been disclosed in discovery. There is no error, however, since Knight was aware of and stipulated to the introduction of this testimony prior to the officer’s taking the stand. Knight also argues that the prosecutor improperly referred to race during closing argument. Mississippi forbids the State from prejudicing the jury against a defendant on account of race. Where the court sustains an objection to the inadmissible testimony of a witness and instructs the jury to disregard it, prejudicial error does not result from that improper testimony. While the prosecutor may have overstepped his bounds in the words he used, the judge took the necessary corrective measures. Issue 2: Closing argument Knight argues that the court erred failing to grant his motion for new trial based on prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. In order to take advantage of improper argument on the part of a prosecuting attorney, objection must be interposed at the time the statement is made, and the point will not be considered on appeal unless motion for a mistrial is timely made. Because Knight failed to ask for a mistrial, the issue is barred. Issue 3: Peremptory challenges Knight argues that the judge erred in allowing the State to use peremptory strikes against jurors based on their race. Knight lists eight jurors he claims were challenged based on race. The State gave detailed reasons on the record for striking each of these jurors. The appellate court defers to the trial judge absent clear error, and Knight has shown no clear error. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Knight argues the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, because the State did not prove that he acted with "deliberate design" or "malice aforethought." Both sides presented several witnesses, including various experts who had examined Knight's mental status and co-workers and family who testified concerning the same. It is in the jury's discretion to accept or reject any expert testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
