Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00135-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00135-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2008 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery, Kidnapping & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Right to present meaningful defense - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - Severance of counts - Offer to stipulate - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-12-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Count I: Conviction of Armed Robbery and Sentence of Twenty-Five (25) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Correction. Count II: Conviction of Kidnapping and Sentence of Twenty (20) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count II shall run concurrently with the sentence in Count 1. Count III: Conviction of Possession of a Handgun by a Convicted Felon and Sentence of Three (3) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 06-0-072 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MICHAEL WAYNE WILLIAMS |
VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS,
WILLIAM R. LABARRE,
GINGER E. GIBSON,
FRANK L. McWILLIAMS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | Armed robbery, Kidnapping & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Right to present meaningful defense - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - Severance of counts - Offer to stipulate - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Williams was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to present meaningful defense Williams argues that he was denied an opportunity to present a meaningful defense. At trial, Williams raised the defense of misidentification. As part of this defense, Williams attempted to introduce into evidence, by way of exhibition to the jury, his gold teeth decorated with carved initials. Williams argues that such an exhibition would have shown the jury that his gold teeth were prominent. Because reversal is warranted only where an admission of evidence prejudiced the accused, the overriding issue is whether the circuit judge’s prohibition of Williams displaying his teeth before the jury violated Williams’s right to present a defense. During the trial, Williams was able to support his defense of misidentification with evidence of his gold teeth. First, the victim testified that Williams had gold teeth. Second, a police officer stated that the victim never mentioned his assailant’s gold teeth. Finally, defense counsel highlighted these statements in closing argument for the jury. Thus, he was not deprived of his right to present a meaningful defense. The underlying issue is whether the formal exhibition of teeth before the jury is “testimonial,” thereby subjecting the person to cross-examination. The circuit court held that such a display was testimonial and therefore opened the door to cross-examination. Because the display of a physical characteristic is outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, its exhibition to the jury would not interfere with a defendant’s rights against self-incrimination. As such, a defendant would be able to exhibit or display physical characteristics without waiving his rights against self-incrimination. The circuit court erred in stating that such a display was testimonial and only allowable upon waiver of the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination. However, the trial court’s erroneous ruling is harmless error since Williams was able to introduce evidence of his gold teeth. Issue 2: Discovery violation Williams argues that the trial court erred when it admitted an audiotape of a 911 telephone call to police reporting the robbery, which prosecutors failed to disclose pre-trial. Defense counsel was informed about the existence of the tape on the evening prior to its admission, was allowed to listen to the tape the following morning before court, was allowed sufficient time to interview the witness called to present the tape, and was allowed the requested half hour to do legal research. URCCC 9.04 (I)(1) requires the court to grant the defense an opportunity to examine the new evidence. Williams’ counsel already had been given an opportunity to examine the tape earlier that morning. In order for the requirements of Rule 9.04 (I)(2) to be invoked, the defense must after such an opportunity, claim unfair surprise and seek a continuance or mistrial. Defense counsel requested a recess and not a continuance as required by Rule 9.04, and therefore waived arguing this issue on appeal. Even without the 911 call, there was ample evidence to support Williams’ conviction, including the victim’s photo line-up identification, the victim’s testimony, and the corroborating gas station surveillance video. Issue 3: Severance of counts Williams presented a motion to sever or in the alternative to stipulate to a prior conviction. Williams argued that count three, convicted felon in possession of a firearm, should be severed because his prior conviction was one of armed robbery. In trials concerning multi-count indictments, severance is unnecessary in Mississippi if the acts or transactions are connected together as part of a common scheme or plan and if the indictment was otherwise proper. In light of the fact that the counts are interwoven, the court acted within its discretion when it denied Williams’s motion to sever count three. Williams also moved to stipulate to his prior conviction. Where evidence of a prior conviction is a necessary element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial (i.e., possession of firearm by a convicted felon), but evidence of the specific nature of the crime for which the defendant was previously convicted (i.e., armed robbery), is not an essential element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial, as it is in DUI cases, the trial court should accept a defendant’s offer to stipulate and grant a limiting instruction. Thus, the trial court erred when it denied Williams’s offer to stipulate to his prior conviction. However, the error is harmless, because the conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence. Issue 4: Motion in limine Williams argued at trial that reference to the fact that the vehicle in which he was arrested was allegedly “stolen” was irrelevant to the charges brought by the State and should not be admitted as it was extremely prejudicial. The general rule is that evidence of a crime, other than the one for which the accused is being tried, is not admissible. However, there are exceptions to this general rule as provided by M.R.E. 404(b). Even where evidence of other crimes is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), it cannot be admitted unless it also passes muster under M.R.E. 403. In the present case, evidence of Williams’s arrest in a stolen vehicle was introduced to explain why he was arrested, how his picture came to be part of the photograph lineup, and how he ultimately was linked with the crimes charged. Evidence of the stolen vehicle was admissible under Rule 404(b). In addition, the evidence was probative to show Williams was involved in the armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
