Wells v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00401-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00401-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2003 Opinion Author: Graves, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault & Murder - Prior consistent statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(b) - Present sense impression - M.R.E. 803(1) - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803 (2) - Aiding and abetting instructions - Recross-examination - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentencing Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Cobb, Diaz, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2001 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. District Attorney: Keith Miller Case Number: 96-10,754 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dexter Tramayne Wells |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS
THOMAS L. MUSSELMAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 & Murder - Prior consistent statement - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(b) - Present sense impression - M.R.E. 803(1) - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803 (2) - Aiding and abetting instructions - Recross-examination - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentencing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dexter Wells was convicted of aggravated assault and murder. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction and life imprisonment on the murder conviction. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Wells argues that the State failed to meet all the required rules for admission of the statement of his cousin concerning statements made by Wells’ co-defendant to Wells’ cousin. M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(b) provides that a statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. The prior consistent statement of the co-defendant was properly admitted. The co-defendant admitted at trial that the statement which he gave to police in accordance with his plea agreement was a true statement. The statement made by the cousin is consistent with the co-defendant’s written statement and was offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him for fabricating a previous statement by later stating on the witness stand that he was alone when the crimes took place. The statement is also admissible under M.R.E. 803 (1) & (2), the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. The co-defendant’s statement to the cousin was sufficiently contemporaneous to fit within M.R.E. 803(1). In addition, the statement was made by the co-defendant while still under the stress of startling events bringing it within M.R.E. 803(2). Issue 2: Aiding and abetting instructions Wells argues that two jury instructions are Hornburger instructions on aiding and abetting which were condemned by the Supreme Court. Because Wells made no specific objection to the jury instructions based on the issues he has raised on appeal, this issue is waived. Issue 3: Recross-examination Wells argues that the court erred in refusing to allow him to recross-examine an investigator in order to raise the issue of spoliation of evidence. Denial of recross examination is appropriate where there is no claim of oversight and no reason stated why the matter was not inquired into on the cross-examination. Wells did not raise a claim of oversight in his objection nor did he state a reason why he did not inquire into the issue during his opportunity for cross-examination. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Wells argues that the verdict was not based on legally sufficient evidence, because there is no testimony on any action by Wells that will satisfy the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Wells committed the elements of the crime of aggravated assault and because the sole witness to the murder testified that he was alone when the crime occurred. The co-defendant admitted in his statement for his plea agreement that Wells shot at one of the victims; Wells’ cousin testified that the co-defendant stated that he and Wells killed the victim; and one of the victims identified Wells in court as the man she saw from the window of the trailer on the night in question. This evidence is sufficient that a reasonable fair-minded juror could have found Wells guilty. Issue 5: Sentencing Wells argues that section 47-5-139(1)(a) is unconstitutional because it makes an age based distinction which lengthens a criminal sentence simply because of the age of the inmate. When a party fails to raise a constitutional issue in the trial court, that issue will not be decided on appeal. Wells never raised this argument in the trial court or in his motion for JNOV or in the alternative a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
