Ford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01706-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2008 Opinion Author: Diaz, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Jury instructions - Admissibility of evidence - M.R.E. 401- M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 901(a) - Closing arguments - Sufficiency of evidence - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-15-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Conviction of aggravated assault with a weapon and sentence of seventeen (17) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 03-0-956 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charise Ford |
William R. LaBarre; Virginia L. Watkins |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE McCRORY | ||
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 assault - Jury instructions - Admissibility of evidence - M.R.E. 401- M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 901(a) - Closing arguments - Sufficiency of evidence - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charise Ford was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to seventeen years. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Ford argues that the jury instructions regarding self-defense incorrectly stated the law by requiring her to prove that the victim was acting with an intent to kill. Both instructions make clear that Ford could act in self-defense if she perceived the victim intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Therefore, these instructions did not misstate the law regarding self-defense. Ford argues that the trial court should have granted a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault. To be entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, Ford must point to evidence from which a jury could reasonably find her not guilty of aggravated assault and at the same time find her guilty of simple assault. It is undisputed that Ford intentionally stabbed the victim. According to her own testimony, Ford struck the victim with the knife in self-defense. There is simply no evidence in the record that Ford acted negligently. Because the evidence can only support a charge of aggravated assault, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. Issue 2: Admissibility of evidence Ford argues that the court erred in admitting testimony from the victim’s treating physician on the nature and extent of the injury, because it was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The extent of the injury is relevant under M.R.E. 401 to prove that the bodily harm was caused by means likely to produce serious bodily harm. Medical testimony on the extent of an injury is relevant to proving an essential element of aggravated assault. In addition, the probative value of this brief testimony was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice which required exclusion under M.R.E. 403. Ford also argues that the court failed to abide by its pre-trial ruling restricting the physician from discussing the victim’s rehabilitation. Ford does not point to any specific testimony, and none of the physician’s testimony addresses the victim’s rehabilitation. Ford also argues that the physician should not have been allowed to testify that a knife could have caused the injury. The cause of the victim’s injury is undisputed. Thus, there is no danger of misleading the jury when the fact in question is admitted by the defendant. Ford argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce two photographs of the injury. The photographs were relevant to prove that Ford used means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm. Ford argues that the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the outside hotel doors because they lacked the appropriate foundation. Because the detective testified that the photographs accurately represented the hotel doors at the time of his investigation, the photographs were properly authenticated under M.R.E. 901(a). Issue 3: Closing arguments Ford argues that improper remarks made during the State’s closing argument unduly prejudiced the jury and denied her fundamental right to a fair trial. The defendant makes reference to all of the objections at trial in her brief, but does not explain how each comment was prejudicial. Without any explanation, it is not readily apparent how the comments infringed Ford’s right to a fair trial. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Ford argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that she did not act in self-defense, because the victim was not a credible witness. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witness. Because the victim’s testimony was sufficient to prove that Ford was the aggressor, and therefore committed aggravated assault, this assignment is without merit. Issue 5: Excessive sentence Ford argues that her sentence was excessive. Although seventeen years is a severe sentence, it does not lead to an inference of “gross disproportionality.” Ford was not sentenced to the maximum penalty which is up to twenty years. Ford also argues that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial when the judge made specific findings of egregiousness in sentencing her to seventeen years. The general rule is any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury. The seventeen-year sentence does not violate Ford’s right to a trial by jury because it is not beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. Ford also argues that her right to equal protection was violated because her sentence exceeds other sentences given for aggravated assault convictions both in Hinds County and other jurisdictions. Beyond the heavy burden required to prove discriminatory intent, the fatal flaw with Ford’s equal protection argument is that she does not tell the Court against what class of persons the trial judge was allegedly discriminating. Thus, equal protection analysis cannot apply. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
