Magee v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-02768-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-02768-COA ; 2003-CT-02768-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-06-2007
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Rape & Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Disqualification of district attorney - Right to impartial jury - Defective indictment - Initial appearance - Cruel and unusual punishment - Evidence of prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(a)(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-05-2004
Appealed from: WALTHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Keith Starrett
Disposition: FOUND GUILTY OF COUNT I, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND COUNT II, RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AS TO COUNT I, AND TO THIRTY YEARS AS TO COUNTY II, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
District Attorney: DEE BATES
Case Number: 2003-38A

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: WILLIE A. MAGEE A/K/A JIM DANDY




CHARLES E. MILLER



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART  

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: Rape & Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Disqualification of district attorney - Right to impartial jury - Defective indictment - Initial appearance - Cruel and unusual punishment - Evidence of prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(a)(1)

Summary of the Facts: Willie Magee was convicted of rape and of burglary of a dwelling. The court sentenced Magee to thirty years for rape and twenty-five years for burglary, to run consecutively, as a habitual offender. Magee appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Magee argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. A person may be found guilty of rape on the uncorroborated word of the victim if that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable juror to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Magee had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim testified that the sex was forcible, not consensual. Her testimony fulfilled all of the essential elements required to establish a case of forcible rape. Her testimony was corroborated by her physical and mental condition and the surrounding circumstances. With regard to the burglary, Magee argues that there was no evidence of a breaking because the police were unable to determine a forcible entry point. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find the elements of breaking and entering beyond a reasonable doubt. There was evidence that Magee entered an outer door and then an interior door to access the victim's living area. The victim testified that both the outer door and the interior door had been locked when she went to sleep that night. Magee further argues that there was no evidence that he entered the house with the intent to commit a crime. The evidence that Magee completed the underlying crime by taking a bag of money from the victim's dresser tended to show that he entered the victim's house with the intent to steal. The issue of Magee's specific intent was a jury question, and the evidence surrounding Magee's theft of the money was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find that Magee harbored the intent to steal when he broke and entered the residence. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Magee argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when an officer was asked if the defendant was being held on the theft of the church air conditioner or the rape charge. Magee argues that the court's ruling violated M.R.E. 404(b). Magee did not object to the prosecutor's question on Rule 404(b) grounds and thus this argument is procedurally barred. In addition, Magee himself had already elicited from the officer evidence that Magee had been charged with theft of an air conditioner. Issue 3: Disqualification of district attorney Magee argues that the court should have granted his motion to disqualify the district attorney on the ground that Magee's counsel had initiated a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of another client against the district attorney in federal court. If Magee ever obtained a ruling on the motion from the lower court, the ruling is not apparent from the record on appeal. It is the movant's responsibility to obtain a ruling on a motion from the trial court, and the movant's failure to pursue a ruling on a motion constitutes a waiver. Issue 4: Right to impartial jury Magee argues that the court's failure to excuse a juror who had read a newspaper article about the case constituted reversible error. The juror had not received any information from the article which he had not already received during the voir dire proceedings. In addition, he stated that he remained fair and impartial and would not discuss the article with the other jurors. Thus, the court's failure to excuse the juror was not clearly wrong. Issue 5: Defective indictment Magee argues that the indictment's citation to the wrong statutory subsection mandates reversal. Citation to a specific statute is not required to afford adequate notice to the defendant. Issue 6: Initial appearance Magee argues that during the police questioning he was held in jail for forty-eight hours without an initial appearance in violation of Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 6.03. Magee has provided inadequate argument supported by citations to the record to establish a violation of the initial appearance rule. Issue 7: Cruel and unusual punishment Magee argues that his consecutive sentences of thirty years for rape and twenty-five years for burglary to be served as a habitual offender are grossly disproportionate to the crimes and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court imposed sentences within the statutory limits for Magee's crimes. When a series of sentences is imposed, the total of the sentences may exceed the defendant's actuarial life expectancy. Issue 8: Evidence of prior conviction Magee argues that the court improperly allowed a witness to be questioned about a prior conviction of Magee’s, because it was over ten years’ old and thus inadmissible under M.R.E. 609. Pursuant to M.R.E. 404(a)(1), the accused may offer evidence of his own pertinent character trait. If the accused opens the door by presenting evidence of his character as a good and law-abiding citizen, then the prosecution is entitled to rebut the same. A prior conviction is admissible to rebut the accused's evidence of his peaceable, law-abiding character even though the conviction would not be admissible for credibility impeachment under Rule 609. Magee's counsel elicited testimony from the witness indicating that Magee was a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. The prosecution was entitled to rebut the testimony about Magee's peaceful and law-abiding character with evidence of Magee's 1980 conviction for possession of stolen property.


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