Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00040-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-23-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct - Admission of weapon - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2001 Appealed from: Sharkey County Circuit Court Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 2093 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Allen Jones |
W. RICHARD JOHNSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct - Admission of weapon - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Jones was convicted of murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jones argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case. To sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. Direct evidence is unnecessary to support a conviction so long as sufficient circumstantial evidence exists to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State established motive by testimony that Jones had visited internet sex chat rooms and met another woman with whom he had a serious relationship and moved to Pennsylvania after his wife’s death to live with the woman. Also, his wife’s life insurance policy paid off a large debt. The State established opportunity by showing that Jones was the only person in the house during the period of time in which his wife was shot twice. Jones's claim that she committed suicide is not a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, since expert testimony established that she was shot twice; there was only one entrance wound; and she would not have had the motor function needed to shoot herself in the head the second time. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Jones argues that he was denied his right to a fair trial because of comments by the prosecutor which amounted to testimony by the prosecution. During closing argument, counsel is limited to the facts introduced in evidence, deductions and conclusions he may reasonably draw therefrom, and the application of the law to the facts. Not only is Jones barred from raising this issue since he failed to object, but each of the statements was based on admitted evidence. Issue 3: Admission of weapon Jones argues that the firearm should not have been admitted into evidence because it was admitted during the testimony of the sheriff who was a convicted felon. Not only did Jones fail to object, but the sheriff was merely performing a ministerial duty by identifying the gun during the trial. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because trial counsel filed a motion for change of venue but neither attached any affidavits thereto nor requested a hearing thereon. To determine whether a change in venue should have been granted, the court looks to the level of pretrial publicity and prejudicial nature of the coverage. Jones fails to present any evidence of the alleged pretrial publicity. Jones also argues that the instructions offered by defense counsel were inadequate and did not properly instruct the jury on his defense theory of suicide. However, his theory was adequately before the jury via the burden of proof instruction given, i.e., that the State must prove every element of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, by finding Jones guilty of murder, found that suicide was not a reasonable hypothesis. Issue 5: Expert testimony Jones argues that the expert testimony of a local physician who specialized in pediatrics and internal medicine as to brain injuries was erroneously admitted, because neurological matters were beyond his expertise. The physician treated Jones’ wife when she was brought to the emergency room and personally observed her motor function and brain activity. Therefore, there was no error in admitting the testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
