Nason v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-01949-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-18-2003
Opinion Author: Bridges, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Testimony of co-defendant - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-08-2001
Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court
Judge: Joseph H. Loper
Disposition: ARMED ROBBERY: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 40YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC; DEFENDANT IS TO PAY ALL COURT COSTS, AND ASSESSMENTS.
District Attorney: Doug Evans
Case Number: 2001-0069CR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Michael Leon Nason




ROSALIND HAYDEN JORDAN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN  

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: Armed robbery - Testimony of co-defendant - Weight of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Michael Nason was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to forty years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Admission of testimony Nason argues that the court erred in allowing his co-defendant to testify because the testimony was unreliable and filled with inconsistencies, was self-serving, and was given under fear and duress. The testimony of an accomplice must be viewed with great caution and suspicion and must be reasonable, not improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached if uncorroborated. Even though the testimony in question contained inconsistencies, it is the duty of the jury to determine the impeachment value of inconsistencies or contradictions. In addition, the testimony was not uncorroborated. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Nason argues that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because it is based on the wholly unreliable and self-serving testimony of the co-defendant and the testimony of only two people who said they could positively identify Nason as a robber even though three-fourths of the robber's face was covered with a mask. It is clear from the record and from Nason's statements that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have convicted him. Also, it is the job of the jury to determine which witnesses are credible and which are not.


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