Young v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02036-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02036-COA ; 2005-CT-02036-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-06-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder & Arson - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-12-2005 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE; COUNT II, FIRST DEGREE ARSON AND SENTENCED TO LIFE; COUNT III, THIRD DEGREE ARSON AND SENTENCED TO LIFE AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles Case Number: CR-2004-042 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KEITH NORCELL YOUNG |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | Capital murder & Arson - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Keith Young was convicted of capital murder with burglary as the underlying felony. He was also convicted of first degree arson and third degree arson. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to serve life sentences without the possibility of parole for each crime. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Young argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a burglary occurred, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the victim’s death occurred during the commission of the burglary. Young argues that there was conflicting evidence as to whether a burglary occurred. It is well settled that where conflicting testimony is presented, the jury will be the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and worth of their testimony. Here, the jury believed the detective’s testimony and was also presented with a picture of the pry mark. Evidence also established that the front door was left ajar, a television was missing and drawers were left open. As to intent, there was ample evidence that Young possessed several items of the victim’s personal property shortly after the burglary. There was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Young burglarized the victim’s home. Young argues that, because there is no concrete time associated with the burglary, there was insufficient evidence to prove that he murdered the victim during the commission of the burglary. Young was seen in the victim’s car trying to sell her television on the morning of the fire at the victim’s house. This is sufficient evidence to prove that he murdered the victim during the commission of the burglary. Issue 2: Expert testimony Young argues that the court erred by permitting a deputy fire marshall to give improper expert testimony because he was not qualified as an expert witness in the area of fire investigation. Assuming for argument’s sake that the court erred in permitting the testimony, the error is harmless. Young’s conviction on both counts of arson are supported by the evidence regardless of this testimony. Young was seen by numerous persons driving the victim’s car and told his sister that he intended to burn it. He also told her that he intended to burn the victim’s house minutes before the fire was discovered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
