Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-02416-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2004 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted aggravated assault - Aggravated domestic violence instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Defective indictment - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-7 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Closing argument - Prosecutorial misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2003 Appealed from: Yalobusha County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to ten years with four years suspended. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2002-19-BY2 |
|
| Note: | Motion to File Supplemental Brief filed by appellant is granted | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donald Wilson |
TOMMY WAYNE DEFER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Attempted aggravated assault - Aggravated domestic violence instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Defective indictment - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-7 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Closing argument - Prosecutorial misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donald Wilson was convicted of attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to ten years with four years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Wilson argues that the court erred in denying two instructions on the crime of aggravated domestic assault. Wilson’s proposed jury instructions were properly rejected. Whether a perpetrator should be presented to a grand jury, and under what charge, are decisions generally left to the prosecutor's discretion. The decision to charge Wilson with attempted aggravated assault rather than aggravated domestic violence was a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Wilson argues that the State failed to make a prima facie case because there was no evidence of a deadly weapon. Given the evidence, it cannot be said that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find Wilson not guilty of the elements of the offense charged. The victim testified extensively about the events of the crime, and her testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. Issue 3: Defective indictment Wilson argues that the indictment was not “stamped mark filed” and therefore was incomplete. Wilson’s claim is procedurally barred, because he raises it for the first time on appeal. Wilson also argues there is no evidence the indictment was presented to a grand jury. The indorsement of the word “filed” on the indictment and the date signed by the clerk is the evidence of the finding and return. Wilson’s indictment was properly filed, dated, and signed by the circuit clerk. Issue 4: Illegal sentence Wilson argues that the sentence he received is outside the sentence prescribed by section 97-3-7. He was convicted and sentenced for a violation of section 97-3-7(2), which states that “[a] person is guilty of aggravated assault if he (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another . . ..” The statute makes no distinction between aggravated assault and attempted aggravated assault. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wilson argues that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel for a variety of reasons. However, Wilson does not show how these alleged deficiencies prejudiced his defense. Issue 6: Closing argument Wilson argues that the court erred in allowing the assistant district attorney to act as an expert witness when he demonstrated to the jury that the gun was inoperable by “tugging and pulling” on the gun. The assistant district attorney never represented himself as an expert in weaponry or Wilson’s particular gun, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the court allowed his comments in closing arguments to be characterized as expert testimony. Issue 7: Prosecutorial misconduct Wilson argues that the assistant district attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct by contacting the owner of the yard to which Wilson’s vehicle was towed on the night of the crime, and telling him not to give out any information about Wilson’s vehicle. There is nothing in the record to support this argument. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
