Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00202-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-00202-SCT ; 2010-KA-00202-COA ; 2010-KA-00202-COA ; 2010-CT-00202-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-23-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Sufficiency of evidence - Aggravated assault instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and King, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2008 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: Jones was acquitted of possession of a firearm by a felon and convicted of aggravated assault. Case Number: 2007-052-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Eddie Ray Jones |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Aggravated assault instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry Taylor and Eddie Jones were tried jointly for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a felon. Taylor was found guilty on both charges, and Jones was acquitted on the latter charge but convicted on the former charge. Jones appealed his aggravated-assault conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed Jones’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jones argues that, viewed alongside Taylor’s convictions, his acquittal on felony possession of a firearm meant that the jury had found that Jones had not possessed or fired a gun. When verdicts are inconsistent, the reviewing court properly considers whether evidence was sufficient to support only those counts on which a conviction is reached. Inconsistent or even contradictory verdicts are not, in and of themselves, reasons to overturn a criminal conviction. The fact that the jury found Jones not guilty of felony possession of a firearm is immaterial to a review of the jury’s determination that Jones committed aggravated assault. The uncontradicted evidence was that the shot which injured the victim came not from a person who was shooting westward, but from an individual or individuals returning fire, shooting toward the east. The trial testimony of a witness was that Jones did have a firearm and was near the scene of the incident just before the shooting. The witness further testified that Jones was running behind her holding a gun, and that she then heard shooting. She never stated that she actually saw Jones fire the weapon, but her testimony constitutes circumstantial evidence to that effect. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence exists for any reasonable trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones was guilty of aggravated assault. Issue 2: Aggravated assault instruction In reading the aiding-and-abetting instruction together with the aggravated-assault instruction, it is clear that the jury was instructed appropriately on the applicable law. The jury was informed adequately via these instructions that if one of the defendants were to be found guilty individually, his codefendant could not be found guilty individually without deliberately associating himself in some way with the crime and participating in it. The references in the aggravated-assault instruction to finding “Eddie Ray Jones and Henry Taylor” guilty certainly informed the jury adequately, reading the instructions as a whole, that it could find both defendants guilty only if the jury found that one of these defendants aided and abetted and/or acted in concert with the other in committing the crime of aggravated assault. In reading all the instructions together as a whole, it is readily apparent that the jury clearly understood that it had to consider each count of the indictment separately as to each defendant and that, as to Count I, the jury could find both defendants guilty, both defendants not guilty, or one defendant guilty and the other defendant not guilty, as to each count. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
