Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-00695-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00695-COA2008-CT-00695-SCT2008-CT-00695-SCT2008-CT-00695-SCT2008-CT-00695-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2009 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Assisted suicide instruction - Priest-penitent privilege - M.R.E. 505(b) - Expert testimony - Speedy trial - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J. Dissenting Author : King, C.J., without separate written opinion. Dissenting Author : Roberts, J. Dissent Joined By : Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-27-2007 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: LK06-083 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court on 11/10/2010. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO66007.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID JACKSON WILLIAMS |
DAVID G. HILL |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY | ||
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 - Assisted suicide instruction - Priest-penitent privilege - M.R.E. 505(b) - Expert testimony - Speedy trial - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Williams was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Assisted suicide instruction Williams argues that the circuit court erred when it refused his proffered assisted-suicide instruction, because it was his theory of the case, it arose from a common nucleus of operative facts, and assisted suicide is a lesser non-included offense of murder. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser non-included charge, if justified by the evidence. In this case, however, there was no such evidence warranting an assisted-suicide instruction. Assisting one in the commission of suicide requires action on the part of the assistor that leads directly to the physical act of terminating life. None of the actions taken by Williams fall in this category. Issue 2: Priest-penitent privilege Williams argues the circuit court committed reversible error when it allowed the Assistant Rector at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church to refuse to testify to certain matters pursuant to the priest-penitent privilege. When the Rector discovered that the victim had died, he voluntarily contacted the Oxford Police Department and gave a statement. Williams sought to have him testify regarding that statement, arguing that he waived the priest-penitent privilege when he gave his statement. Pursuant to M.R.E. 505(b), a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as spiritual adviser. One of the qualifiers for operation of the privilege is that a communication must be confidential. The circuit court was entitled to find that the conversation between the victim and the rector was confidential based on the circumstances under which it occurred. The victim sought the advice and counseling of a priest at her church, and she did so after Good Friday services while still at church. In addition, Williams was not prejudiced by the circuit court’s decision to allow the rector to claim the priest-penitent privilege. Issue 3: Expert testimony Williams argues the circuit court erred when it allowed Dr. Hayne to testify as an expert witness. Dr. Hayne’s testimony did not affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of Williams’s trial. From the record, it appears that Dr. Hayne and Williams' expert merely disagreed regarding methodology and conclusions. As the jury heard testimony from both doctors, there is no merit to any contention that Williams' expert's testimony invalidated Dr. Hayne’s testimony. Issue 4: Speedy trial Williams went to trial approximately 571 days from the date that he waived arraignment. He argues he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Williams is procedurally barred from raising his constitutional right to a speedy trial for the first time on appeal. Williams filed his motion to dismiss 566 days after he waived arraignment. Accordingly, Williams waived his right to complain about not being tried within 270 days, because he neither requested nor asserted his right to a speedy trial within that time. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. His claims in this regard are without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
