Washington v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01953-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Judge’s comments on testimony 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: 08-09-2005 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 03-0117-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ANTONIO POWELL WASHINGTON |
ROSALIND HAYDEN JORDAN |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Judge’s comments on testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antonio Washington was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Washington argues that the court erred in commenting, in open court and before the jury, on the testimony of Washington regarding instances of harassment and threats of violence and death made against Washington by the victim, saying that they were too remote for the jury to consider. In neither exchange where the judge made remarks incident to his ruling on the State’s objection was there a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel. The failure to make a timely objection serves as a procedural bar. In addition, Washington and others were allowed to testify freely as to threats and harassment which took place from 2001 to the time of the shooting in 2003. It is apparent from the jury’s verdict that the judge’s observations on the question of remoteness did not improperly influence the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
