Sheffield v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00283-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault on law enforcement officer - Character evidence - Self-defense instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-19-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: GUILTY OF SIMPLE ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER. SENTENCED TO A TERM OF 5 YEARS IN THE MDOC. SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH HIS FEDERAL SENTENCE. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-00-00725 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Antonio Sheffield |
RODNEY D. ROBINSON, DECEASED
FELICIA DUNN BURKES |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Simple assault on law enforcement officer - Character evidence - Self-defense instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antonio Sheffield was convicted of simple assault on a law enforcement officer and was sentenced to five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Character evidence Sheffield argues that he was prevented from presenting evidence to demonstrate to the jury that the officer was overly aggressive in his treatment of prisoners, thereby making Sheffield’s claimed fear of imminent harm more reasonable. In a self-defense case, the reputation of the victim may be relevant when there is a claim that the victim was the initial aggressor. It is essential that the proper predicate be laid for the admissibility of evidence of the victim’s propensity for violence, i.e., that the defendant was actually aware of the victim’s character so that this prior knowledge colored the defendant’s decision regarding the necessity of violent physical effort to avoid an anticipated attack. There is nothing in Sheffield’s testimony indicating that he had any basis to reasonably believe that the officer was bearing down on him with the intention of inflicting serious bodily injury. His testimony about what he had heard from others was characterized only as misconduct which does not necessarily invoke notions of physical assaults designed to inflict serious injury. Sheffield also argues that he was improperly restricted in presenting testimony from a defense witness relating to the issue of self-defense. However, the witness’s allegation of sexual misconduct by the officer does nothing to show a propensity for unprovoked violence on the part of the officer. Sheffield also argues that the court erred in refusing to allow a witness to testify as to a previous incident where the officer allegedly choked an inmate while the inmate was physically restrained with handcuffs. Absent a showing that Sheffield was actually aware of the prior alleged choking incident, there could be no basis to claim that Sheffield, in fear of some similar unwarranted attack, elected to act preemptively to avoid injury to himself. Issue 2: Self-defense instruction Sheffield argues that the court erred when it declined to give his requested jury instruction on self-defense. There is no reversible error if the instructions, as given, fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice. Two instructions were given in this case that more than adequately presented Sheffield's theory of defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
