Hicks v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-02086-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-02086-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-06-2007
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Certificate of rehabilitation - Section 97-37-5(c) - Peremptory challenges
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J., without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-27-2006
Appealed from: Simpson County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: Conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentence of three (3) years, as a habitual offender, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Said sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall the appellant be eligible for parole or probation.
District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen
Case Number: 2006-53-K

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Mark Hicks




Leslie S. Lee; Jenna Koger



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE McCRORY  

    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: Possession of firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Certificate of rehabilitation - Section 97-37-5(c) - Peremptory challenges

    Summary of the Facts: Mark Hicks was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to three years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Hicks argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hicks was a convicted felon because the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Hicks was the Mark Hicks convicted in court files number 7532 and 7866. The circuit clerk testified that she was subpoenaed by the State to bring court files numbered 7532 and 7688 with her to court. She stated that the name of the defendant in files numbered 7532 and 7688 was Mark Hicks. According to the certified copy of the final judgments and sentences, Hicks was convicted of grand larceny on March 31, 1986, in cause number 7532, and he was convicted of burglary on March 13, 1987, in cause number 7688. The clerk testified that the court files did not contain a pardon from the governor of the State of Mississippi nor any relief from disability. She stated that she did not personally know Hicks, and it was not her duty to identify Hicks. While the clerk stated that there was no picture in the court file, file number 7688 contained a social security number on the commitment order to the penitentiary. She also stated that the file contained a date of birth and information listing the race and sex as a black male. There also was sufficient evidence based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to support that Hicks was in possession of a weapon. Issue 2: Jury instruction Hicks argues that a jury instruction peremptorily told the jury that Hicks had not received a pardon, a relief from a disability or a certificate of rehabilitation, thereby resulting in plain error by relieving the jury from finding each element of the offense. The absence of a pardon, relief from a disability, or a certificate of rehabilitation are not essential elements of the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Whether the defendant received a pardon for the felony, or had not received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to section 97-37-5(c) is an affirmative defense that was incumbent upon the defendant to raise, not an element of the offense for the State to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 3: Peremptory challenges Hicks argues that the court erred in allowing the State to exercise its peremptory strikes against two African-American jurors. In the case of one of the jurors, the prosecution said that the juror answered too quickly. While the Court has never held that answering too quickly is a race-neutral reason for striking a juror, the State contends answering too quickly is akin to inattentiveness. That is, the juror is not interested enough to allow the questioner to complete his or her question before answering the question. Here, the trial court found that the juror's answering too quickly could indicate a predisposition, and the State was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Inattentiveness was the reason given by the prosecution for striking the other juror. Inattentiveness alone has been accepted as a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory strike.


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