Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00844-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00844-COA2008-CT-00844-SCT2008-CT-00844-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-19-2010
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder - Discovery violation - Character of victim - M.R.E. 404(a) - Prosecutorial misconduct - Continuance - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Impeachment - M.R.E. 616 - Prior inconsistent statement - Flight instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-06-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: L. Breland Hilburn
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson
Case Number: 03-0-969

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: HARVEY WILLIAMS, JR. A/K/A SMOKIE




JANE E. TUCKER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Sur Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

    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 - Discovery violation - Character of victim - M.R.E. 404(a) - Prosecutorial misconduct - Continuance - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Impeachment - M.R.E. 616 - Prior inconsistent statement - Flight instruction

    Summary of the Facts: Harvey Williams Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Discovery violation Williams argues that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of a security guard who was working at Jay’s Lounge on the morning that the victim was killed, because the excluded portion of the testimony would have shown that Williams acted in self-defense. If the circuit court determines that the defendant’s discovery violation is willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, the newly-discovered evidence or witnesses may be excluded. In this case, the trial judge here did not find that Williams’s failure to include in his disclosure to the State all of what the security guard purportedly would testify to at trial was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage. Yet, the trial judge limited the testimony to essentially what had been disclosed to the State. It is not unreasonable for the trial judge to have concluded that the defense disclosed only a portion of what the witness would have testified to, willfully withholding the rest for the purpose of attempting to gain some sort of tactical advantage. In addition, the error is harmless at best, because of all of the other evidence of Williams’s guilt that was presented to the jury. Also, Williams was able to put before the jury his theory of the case, that is, that he acted in self-defense. Issue 2: Character of victim The State filed several motions in limine prior to trial seeking to have testimony regarding the victim’s prior criminal history excluded from the trial. The trial court granted the motions. Williams argues that the trial court erred in doing so, because the rulings prevented him from presenting his theory of the case. M.R.E. 404(a) provides that evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. In this case, the security guard and Williams testified that the victim committed an overt act immediately prior to the shooting. The predicate was not laid for Williams’s attorney to elicit testimony regarding the victim’s propensity for violence until after either the guard or Williams testified as to an overt act. Accordingly, the trial judge’s ruling granting the motions in limine was proper at the time because testimony regarding the victim’s propensity for violence was not relevant during the State’s case in chief. After the defense had produced testimony regarding an overt act made by the victim toward Williams, it was incumbent upon Williams to either recall witnesses to inquire further about the victim’s reputation for violence or to call its own witness to establish this point. Williams failed to do so. Issue 3: Prosecutorial misconduct Williams argues that the State improperly argued that Williams was the only witness who saw the victim with a gun shortly before the shooting. However, the State simply argued the facts that were in evidence. Williams also argues that he was denied due process and the right to a fair trial because the State made improper statements and irrelevant inquiries during the course of his trial. While one of the prosecutors was overzealous in her representation of the State, any error in this regard is harmless. Williams admitted shooting the victim. The only issue before the jury was whether the shooting occurred in self-defense. The record contains a plethora of evidence indicating that the shooting was not in self-defense. Williams also argues that the State mischaracterized Dr. Hayne’s testimony as it relates to where the bullets entered the victim’s body. However, the record clearly shows that the State did not mischaracterize Dr. Hayne’s testimony. Issue 4: Continuance Williams argues that he asked for a continuance because he needed more time to locate two witnesses who would testify about the victim’s propensity for violence. Williams did not request a continuance until the first day of trial. Williams’s trial counsel was appointed over a year before his trial began. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that she could have discovered these witnesses during that time. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to comply with discovery rules and that her failure to do so resulted in the exclusion of evidence that would have supported his theory of the case. Williams does not identify any witnesses whose testimonies were excluded. Thus, there is nothing to review. Issue 6: Impeachment Williams argues that the trial court erred in holding that a witness could be impeached with a video that depicts her and Williams involved in roleplaying. The State was not attempting to use this information in its case-in-chief. M.R.E. 616 provides that for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible. Thus, the trial judge committed no error. Issue 7: Prior inconsistent statement Williams argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine a witness regarding a prior statement that he had given to his attorney, an attorney who also had previously represented Williams. However, the statement was clearly hearsay that does not fall within any exception. Therefore, it was properly excluded. Issue 8: Flight instruction Williams argues that the trial court erred in giving the jury a flight instruction. An instruction that flight may be considered as a circumstance of guilt or guilty knowledge is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge. Despite Williams’s testimony that he fled the scene out of fear, his subsequent actions render his testimony unreasonable. If Williams were genuinely afraid that someone might harm him for killing the victim, he no longer had reason to be afraid when the police began following him, as it is reasonable to conclude that the police would have protected him had anyone attempted to retaliate. Therefore, it was proper for the jury to be given the flight instruction.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court