Williams v. Smith
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00143-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00143-COA ; 2007-CT-00143-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of building & Grand larceny - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographic lineup Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. without separate written opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-30-2006 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT I, BURGLARY OF A BUILDING, AND SENTENCE OF SEVEN YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND COUNT II, GRAND LARCENY, AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I. ORDERED TO PAY $1,000 FINE, $100 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND, AND $550 RESTITUTION. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: 2006-164CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CURTIS LEE WILLIAMS |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF,
LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| 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: | Burglary of building & Grand larceny - Sufficiency of evidence - Photographic lineup |
| Summary of the Facts: | Curtis Williams was convicted of burglary of a building and grand larceny. The court sentenced Williams to consecutive sentences of seven years for burglary and five years for grand larceny as a habitual offender. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain his grand larceny conviction. It is not enough that a defendant moves for JNOV on the basis that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a prima facie case. A defendant must specifically state just how the prosecution failed to present a prima facie case. Because Williams has failed to provide specificity, his issue is procedurally barred. The linchpin of Williams’ argument centers on the valuation of the stolen property. The victim testified that one seven-piece socket set was newly purchased, and it cost $150. Based on the victim’s testimony regarding the remainder of the stolen items, a jury could reasonably infer that the tools had a fair market value greater than $100, for a total of over $250. Issue 2: Photographic lineup One of the victims identified Williams from a photographic lineup prepared by the Desoto County Sheriff’s Department. Williams argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the lineup, because the lineup was impermissibly suggestive since two of the six pictures included a linear height measurement in the background and those measurements indicated that those individuals were significantly taller than Williams’s description. The lineup was not suggestive for that reason. The victim saw two people burglarize her shed. She described one person as 6’1” to 6’3” and the other as 5’6” to 5’8.” The photographic lineup would be much more suggestive if it did not contain pictures of people that fit the description of both people that the victim saw. He also argues it was impermissibly suggestive because of the backgrounds in the pictures. However, nothing about the background of the pictures singles out Williams. It is noteworthy that the victim also identified Williams at trial. An impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification does not preclude in-court identification by an eyewitness who viewed the suspect at the procedure, unless from the totality of the circumstances surrounding it the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Even if the picture of Williams was slightly suggestive, it was not so suggestive that it gave rise to the likelihood of irreparable misidentification. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
