Sacus v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-01517-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-27-2007
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Refusal to give written statement
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-09-2005
Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Sharion R. Aycock
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER, SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAYMENT OF A $5,000 FINE, $500 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND, AND $7,200 IN RESTITUTION.
District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG
Case Number: CR04-147

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: GARY SACUS




THOMAS M. BRAHAN



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

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: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Refusal to give written statement

Summary of the Facts: Gary Sacus was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Sacus argues that there was no testimony that he was still angry at the victim at the time he bought the hand gun, thus evidence of the purchase of the hand gun which ultimately killed the victim was irrelevant. The evidence presented at trial proves that Sacus had the willful intent necessary for manslaughter. While trial testimony conflicts about certain details, it is the province of the jury to resolve these conflicts and decide which witnesses are credible. Several witnesses testified that Sacus was angry that his $100 wager had not been returned. The purchase of the gun in Columbus, even if coincidental, contributed to Sacus’s wilful intent. Many witnesses saw Sacus and the victim arguing before the shooting. The evidence is undisputed that Sacus unnecessarily introduced a deadly weapon into a disagreement, with tragic results. Furthermore, it is hard to fathom how a victim could be accidentally shot not once, but three times. Issue 2: Refusal to give written statement Sacus argues that the exercise of his right to remain silent would also include his right to refuse to record or write his statement–a statement which he orally gave to the police. Sacus waived his privilege to remain silent regarding his refusal to make a written or recorded statement. He gave an oral statement to police, not to mention testifying at trial. Additionally, since Sacus gave an oral statement to police, testimony of his refusal to write or record a statement would not prejudice him further.


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