Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01151-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 10-23-2007 | |
* 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: 01-29-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Weathersby rule - Exclusion of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-08-2006 Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 06-CR-024-SC-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SAM HENRY WILLIAMS |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS,
JASON AVERY MANGUM |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Weathersby rule - Exclusion of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sam Williams was convicted of murder. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that, as a matter of law, his account of the events leading up to the shooting of the victim should be presumed to be correct, and that therefore he cannot be found guilty of murder. He bases this argument on the Weathersby Rule. The Weathersby Rule holds that if the defendant’s version of the killing is reasonable, it must, as a matter of law, be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness, or by the physical facts or by facts of common knowledge. A defendant is precluded from seeking the protection of the Weathersby Rule when he or she, following the slaying, gives conflicting versions of how the killing took place, or initially denies the act. In order for the Weathersby Rule to apply in this case, Williams’ account of the killing must not be contradicted by, among other things, his subsequent accounts of the killing. In fact, the testimony of the sheriff’s deputies who interviewed Williams two different times after the killing occurred indicates that his account of the killing did change. In addition, forensic evidence concerning the trajectory of the bullet was introduced at trial that at least partially contradicted Williams’ account of the killing. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence Williams argues that the court erred in excluding testimony of a sheriff’s deputy concerning the potential for the pistol used in the shooting to discharge accidentally when striking a hard object. Williams failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal. When testimony is excluded at trial, a record must be made of the proffered testimony in order to preserve the point for appeal. No proffer of the content of the excluded testimony was made at trial in this case. However, even if a proffer of the evidence had been made, the trial court’s refusal to admit the testimony regarding the potential for the weapon used in the killing to discharge accidentally when striking a hard object would not have been in error. In every account of the killing Williams gave, in interviews and at trial, he never denied that the pistol was cocked when it fired the fatal bullet. Therefore, any testimony concerning the propensity for pistols of that type to accidentally fire while not cocked would have been irrelevant. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
