Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00504-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00504-COA ; 2007-CT-00504-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-29-2007 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTION OF FONDLING AND SENTENCE TO SERVE FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND A FINE OF $2,000 District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2005-67-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOHNNY RAY DAVIS |
ERIC A. TIEBAUER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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: | Fondling - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Davis was convicted of the crime of fondling a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years, with ten years to serve and five years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Davis argues that the prosecutor directly or impliedly commented on the fact that Davis did not testify by referencing the videotaped interview that was introduced into evidence. The prosecutor’s statement was not a comment on the defendant’s right not to testify against himself. When read in the proper context, the statement was focused on the content of the videotaped interview, which was played to the jury, and the interview’s irrelevance to the issues of the case. The statement does not lead the jury to infer anything about the reasons why Davis did not testify at trial. Because there was no contemporaneous objection made to the prosecutor’s statement, Davis waived this issue. Davis also argues that the prosecutor denied Davis the right to a fair trial by using the word “pervert” to describe Davis. Davis’s argument that the prosecutor made statements to inflame the passions of the jury and to urge the jury to “send a message” are also procedurally barred because Davis made no timely objections to the statements of the prosecutor. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
