Jones v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-01307-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01307-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-25-2003
Opinion Author: Lee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: King, P.J. Votes: Irving, J.
Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2001
Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court
Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III
Disposition: APPELLANT CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT, SAID SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.
District Attorney: Doug Evans
Case Number: 00-0093A-CR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: James Lamar Jones a/k/a James Jones, Jr. a/k/a James L. Jones




DANIEL STARR SPIVEY ROBERT LOUIS WILLIAMSON



 

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.


Summary of the Facts: James Jones was convicted of murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jones argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, because of inconsistencies in testimony. It is for the jury to resolve matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence. Issue 2: In-court identifications Jones argues that his due process rights were violated when three witnesses were allowed to make in-court identifications of Jones as the shooter. Because he failed to object at trial to two of the in-court identifications, he has not preserved the issue with regard to those two for appeal. With regard to the third witness, she did not identify Jones as the shooter and therefore, his argument is without merit. Issue 3: Prior inconsistent statement Jones argues that the court erred in declining to allow the written statement of a witness to be used to impeach her testimony which was inconsistent with her prior statement. M.R.E. 613(b) allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness to be admitted if the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. When a witness is given an opportunity to admit or deny the making of a statement, his refusal to admit or deny making the statement opens the door for impeachment. Because the witness was provided ample opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in her statement and her testimony, there was no reason for the judge to admit the statement which would be superfluous or extrinsic evidence. Issue 4: Closing argument Jones argues that the judge erred in allowing the prosecutor to make improper statements which were prejudicial to Jones. The prosecution may not comment on a defendant's not testifying. Because the objection at trial did not concern Jones's decision not to testify, the issue is procedurally barred. In addition, the remark concerned lack of evidence (failure to impeach) rather than Jones's failure to testify. Jones also argues that the prosecutor engaged in personal vilification of Jones during closing argument. The context of the prosecutor’s argument shows that he told the jurors that Jones's specific actions as they transpired in this case should not be tolerated. Therefore, there is no error.


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