Woods v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02372-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-24-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-21-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medicaid fraud - Supplemental jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Denial of appeal bond - Section 99-35-115(2) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-19-2005 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF FOUR COUNTS OF MEDICAID FRAUD AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS ON EACH COUNT, WITH THREE YEARS OF EACH COUNT SUSPENDED, AND WITH ALL FOUR COUNTS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT YEARS TO SERVE AND TWELVE YEARS SUSPENDED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 05-003-KB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WILLIE WOODS |
EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS
JAMES D. BELL |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: R. STEWART SMITH |
|
|
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: | Medicaid fraud - Supplemental jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Denial of appeal bond - Section 99-35-115(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Woods was convicted of four counts of Medicaid fraud and was sentenced to a total of twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Supplemental jury instruction Woods argues that the court erred when it granted, over his objection, a supplemental instruction after jury deliberations had begun. During its deliberations, the jury sent a question to the court: “As to all Four Counts does #1 mean any services or does ‘services’ have to relate to the ‘services’ claimed on all supporting documents.” The court issued the following written response to the jury: “You should consider all evidence as it relates to the dates of July 11, 2001, October 26, 2001, November 1, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Please keep this note with the jury instructions.” The jury’s reference to “#1” indicates that it was referring to instructions 6-9. This instruction was tendered by Woods. A similar instruction tendered by the State was given to the jury as Instruction 10. A review of these instructions reveals that they are in direct conflict. Instructions 6-9 authorize the jury to find Woods not guilty if it finds that he provided any case management services on the dates in question, while the State’s instruction specifies what types of services Woods was supposed to have rendered on those dates but does not apprise the jury if those services are case management services. There was evidence that Woods provided some case management services on the dates in question, although not the specific case management services indicated on the forms that he turned in. It is apparent that the jury’s question to the lower court was an attempt to discern which of these two instructions the jury was supposed to follow. It was not necessary to give further instruction; rather, the court never should have allowed both Woods’s instructions and the State’s instruction. The fact that the jury appeared to be torn between whether it had to find that Woods failed to provide specific medical services or whether it could find that Woods simply provided services other than the ones contained in his logs indicates the severity of the confusion created by the granting of the two instructions. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial without improper jury instructions. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence The evidence was sufficient to sustain Woods’ conviction. Had there been no conflicting jury instructions and no supplemental instruction issued by the court, Woods’ conviction would be affirmed. The evidence was clear that Woods claimed to have taken Gates to various health care facilities on the four dates in question, and yet the facilities had no record of ever having seen Gates. Issue 3: Denial of appeal bond Section 99-35-115(2) clearly indicates that the decision whether to issue an appeal bond is at the trial court’s discretion. In this case, the court provided in the record reasons for the denial. Given these reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appeal bond to Woods. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
