Hicks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00696-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00696-COA ; 2007-CT-00696-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-12-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated domestic violence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Dissenting Author : KING, C.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : CHANDLER, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-30-2007 Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 2007-01 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | STACY HICKS |
LESLIE S. LEE,
BRENDA JACKSON PATTERSON,
EARL P. JORDAN |
|
|
| 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: | Aggravated domestic violence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stacy Hicks was convicted of aggravated domestic violence and was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hicks argues that the trial court erred by allowing improper opinion testimony from a lay witness. Because the officer’s testimony was based on his experience as a law enforcement professional, Hicks argues that the testimony should have been considered expert opinion testimony and subjected to the foundational requirements of M.R.E. 702, as well as discovery procedures of URCCC 9.04(A)(4). Where, in order to express the opinion, the witness must possess some experience or expertise beyond that of the average, randomly selected adult, it is a Rule 702 opinion and not a Rule 701 opinion. The testimony at issue required only personal observation. The officer did little more than describe the injuries that he observed firsthand shortly after the assault occurred. His descriptions of the wounds and their relative severity were factual descriptions and fall within M.R.E. 701. However, to the extent that the officer blurred the line between fact and opinion testimony with regard to his testimony that he would expect Hicks to have more severe injuries if he had been defending himself against a knife attack, any error is harmless in light of the overwhelming weight of the evidence of his guilt. The evidence at trial contradicts his testimony that he acted in self-defense. Additionally, an officer is allowed to describe his first-hand observations of injuries. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
