Matthews v. City of Madison
| Docket Number: | 2012-KM-01528-COA Linked Case(s): 2012-CT-01528-SCT ; 2012-KM-01528-COA ; 2012-CT-01528-SCT ; 2012-CT-01528-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-17-2013 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault & Disorderly conduct - Sufficiency of evidence - Exclusion of evidence - URCCC 9.04 Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes and Maxwell, JJ., Concur in Part and in the Result Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, P.J., and James, J., Concur in Part and Dissent in Part Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-29-2012 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: John Emfinger Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, SIMPLE ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO 180 DAYS, WITH THIRTY DAYS TO SERVE AND 150 DAYS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS, AND TO PAY A FINE OF $190; AND COUNT II, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND SENTENCED TO 180 DAYS, WITH FIVE DAYS TO SERVE AND 175 DAYS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS, AND TO PAY A FINE OF $160, WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Case Number: 2011-0670-E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mark Matthews a/k/a Mark David Mathews a/k/a Mark D. Mathews a/k/a Mark David Matthews a/k/a Mark Mathews |
CHRIS N. K. GANNER |
|
|
| Appellee: | City of Madison, Mississippi | JOHN HEDGLIN | ||
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: | Simple assault & Disorderly conduct - Sufficiency of evidence - Exclusion of evidence - URCCC 9.04 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mark Matthews was convicted of simple assault and disorderly conduct in Madison County Municipal Court. He appealed to county court where he was again convicted of simple assault and disorderly conduct. He appealed to circuit court which affirmed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Matthews argues that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him for assault. Matthews does not argue that he did not assault the victim; however, he asserts that under the castle doctrine, the assault was justified to prevent the victim from kidnapping his child. No evidence was presented that Matthews feared imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to his child. Therefore, the county court did not err in refusing to apply the castle doctrine, as there was not sufficient evidence to support the doctrine’s application. Both Matthews and the victim testified that Matthews pinned the victim in the door of his vehicle. The victim testified that she called out in pain several times. She also testified that she had bruises as a result of the incident. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Matthews also argues that the evidence was insufficient for disorderly conduct. An officer testified that he instructed Matthews to return to his car and to refrain from using his cell phone. Although Matthews began to return to his car, Matthews testified that he refused to refrain from using his cell phone. When he failed to comply with the officer’s order, he was arrested. From the evidence presented, a reasonable finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable double that Matthews was guilty of disorderly conduct. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence Matthews argues that the trial court erred in excluding a copy of the Madison Police Department dispatch report of the incident. The trial court sustained the City’s objection that Matthews had not disclosed the report through reciprocal discovery. When URCCC 9.04 is violated, the error is considered harmless unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the violation caused a miscarriage of justice. Although the trial court’s exclusion of the police report was a violation of Rule 9.04, the error is harmless because Matthews testified to the contents of the report. It cannot be said that the exclusion of the police report caused a miscarriage of justice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
