Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-00751-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-07-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of more than thirty grams of marihuana - Use of restraints - Mistrial - Motion in limine - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-27-2006
Appealed from: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: FOUND GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THIRTY GRAMS, BUT LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY GRAMS, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, SAID SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN CAUSE NO. CR97-12-C-T2.
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: CR 2005-2-LT-2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MICHAEL AMES WILLIAMS




TOMMY WAYNE DEFER



 

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: Possession of more than thirty grams of marihuana - Use of restraints - Mistrial - Motion in limine - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403

Summary of the Facts: Michael Williams was convicted of possession of more than thirty grams of marihuana, but less than two-hundred-and-fifty grams, and was sentenced to twenty years as a habitual offender. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Use of restraints Williams argues that the court erred in allowing him to enter the courtroom in restraints. In general, a defendant has the right to be free of shackles or handcuffs when in front of the jury. However, where there is a risk of escape or the possibility of harm to other persons, restraint devices may be used in the judge’s discretion. Given Williams’s belligerent demeanor, his past history of violence, the fact that it had taken six officers to arrest him, and his refusal to cooperate in proceeding with the trial, the court did not err in ordering that he be shackled the morning of trial. Furthermore, Williams has shown no prejudice that resulted from this shackling. Issue 2: Mistrial Williams argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after a potential juror stated that he knew Williams because Williams had been in and out of the county jail. The trial court must declare a mistrial when there is an error in the proceedings resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s case. Any harm done by a potential juror stating that he knew Williams from the county jail became harmless when Williams himself openly testified that he had been in jail prior to trial. Issue 3: Motion in limine Williams argues that the court erred in refusing to suppress testimony by the arresting officers regarding his arrest, either by granting Williams’s pretrial motion in limine, or by sustaining his objections made to the testimony during trial. There are at least two reasons justifying admission of the evidence in question. First, the marihuana was discovered by the officers when it fell out of Williams’s shirt sleeve as he struggled with the officers in a futile attempt to avoid being arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. Therefore, testimony about the struggle was necessary to relate to the jury the complete story of how the marihuana was discovered. Also, it is well settled that evidence of flight or escape is admissible as an exception to M.R.E. 404(b) in order to show guilty knowledge. Williams’s struggle with the officers is admissible because it tends to show his guilty knowledge of the marihuana. Given the highly relevant and probative nature of this aspect of the evidence, the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion as measured by M.R.E. 403 did not outweigh the reasons for admitting the evidence.


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