Fugate v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02175-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated domestic violence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Opinion evidence - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 - Impeachment - M.R.E. 801(d)(1) - M.R.E. 613 - Closing argument - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-08-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED. District Attorney: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY Case Number: 2004-325-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES RYAN FUGATE A/K/A JAMIE |
LESLIE D. ROUSSELL |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 domestic violence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Opinion evidence - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 - Impeachment - M.R.E. 801(d)(1) - M.R.E. 613 - Closing argument - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Fugate was found guilty of aggravated domestic violence. He was sentenced to twenty years, with five years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts Fugate argues that his having committed domestic violence against his girlfriend on prior occasions was inadmissible evidence of his character. Fugate presented a defense based on accident by having witnesses testify that his girlfriend injured herself when she fell and her face hit the ground. M.R.E. 404(b) permits introduction of prior acts to demonstrate absence of accident. Although the evidence is prejudicial to Fugate, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding under M.R.E. 403 that the probative value of the proposed evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Issue 2: Opinion evidence Fugate argues that the court improperly allowed the prosecution to present inadmissible opinion evidence contained in his videotaped interview. Although he cites M.R.E. 701, Fugate does not point to one specific point or statement within his videotaped interview that he claims is inadmissible under M.R.E. 701. Fugate does not point out just how the statements at issue are either not rationally based on his perceptions, unhelpful to either the clear understanding of his statement or the determination of a fact in issue, or that they are based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of M.R.E. 702. Fugate’s responses were helpful to the clear understanding of his statement and they were helpful to the determination of the fact in issue - whether Fugate caused the victim’s injuries. Issue 3: Impeachment Fugate argues that the court improperly prohibited him from impeaching the victim’s testimony with his mother’s testimony. Fugate attempted to have his mother testify as to what he termed prior inconsistent hearsay statements made by the victim. There is no question that the victim’s testimony would not be admissible as a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to M.R.E. 801(d)(1). She did not testify, inconsistently or otherwise, under oath at a prior hearing, deposition, or other proceeding. Also, her prior statement was not one of identification of a person made after perceiving him. A witness’s prior statements may also be admissible pursuant to M.R.E. 613. The court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution’s objections. The proffered testimony of Fugate’s mother was consistent with the victim’s testimony and, as such, would certainly not be admissible as prior inconsistent testimony. Issue 4: Closing argument Fugate argues that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments. Because he failed to object at trial, this issue is deemed waived. In addition, the prosecution was merely pointing out inconsistencies between a witness’s testimony and her behavior. Issue 5: Weight of evidence The victim testified that Fugate struck her at least two or three times and that she went down and passed out. She testified that she found herself seriously injured the next morning. Her doctor testified as to Howard’s multiple facial fractures. Thus, the jury heard ample evidence to find Fugate guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
