Williams v. State
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00630-COA
|Court of Appeals:||
Opinion Date: 02-16-2010
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
|Additional Case Information:||
Topic: Armed robbery, Kidnapping & Felon in possession of weapon - Pre-trial identification - Exhibits to jury - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2008
Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Frank G. Vollor
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY; COUNT II, KIDNAPPING; COUNT III, KIDNAPPING; AND COUNT IV, FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM; AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN COUNT I; THIRTY YEARS IN COUNT II; THIRTY YEARS IN COUNT III; THREE YEARS IN COUNT IV; AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS PURSUANT TO MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 97-37-37, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr.
Case Number: 07-0340-CRV
|Party Name:||Attorney Name:||Brief(s) Available:|
|Appellant:||QUINTIN WILLIAMS A/K/A QUINTIN LAMAR
||PHILLIP BROADHEAD, LESLIE S. LEE
|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:||Armed robbery, Kidnapping & Felon in possession of weapon - Pre-trial identification - Exhibits to jury - Sufficiency of evidence|
|Summary of the Facts:||Quintin Williams was convicted of Count I, armed robbery; Count II, kidnapping; Count III, kidnapping; and Count IV, felon in possession of a weapon. Williams was sentenced to twenty-five years on Count I; thirty years on Count II; thirty years on Count III; three years on Count IV; and ten years pursuant to section 97-37-37(2). He appeals.|
|Summary of Opinion Analysis:||Issue 1: Pretrial identification Williams argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victimís pretrial identification, because her identification of Williams in the six-pack photographic lineup was based upon her identification of Williams from the alleged highly suggestive side-profile photograph and not on her personal observations. An impermissibly-suggestive pretrial identification does not preclude in-court identification unless from the totality of the circumstances the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. In assessing the validity of identification testimony, factors to consider include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; the witnessís degree of attention; the accuracy of the witnessís prior description of the criminal; the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Here, the victim had ample opportunity to view Williams at the time of the crime. She testified that she noticed Williams prior to the commission of the crime and thought he looked suspicious. She testified that she was face-to-face with Williams when he was demanding money from her and saw him clearly in the rear view mirror when she was driving him away from the apartment complex. From her testimony, it is clear that she paid a great deal of attention to Williams. She gave a detailed description of Williams six days prior to seeing the side-profile photograph. Her prior description of Williams was accurate. She never wavered in her identification of Williams as her attacker. She first identified Williams two weeks after her attack, then giving a detailed description of Williams, and then after seeing him twice after the robbery and kidnapping. She again identified Williams six months later during the six-pack photographic lineup. There is substantial credible evidence supporting the trial courtís ruling that there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Issue 2: Exhibits Williams argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide the jury with all the exhibits. He argues that the failure to send the side-profile photograph to the jury constituted reversible error. The trial judge did not err in determining that inadvertently withholding the side-profile photograph of Williams was error, but that error was harmless. In addition to viewing the side-profile photograph of Williams several times during the trial, the photograph was handed to each individual juror to examine. Williams also argues that the trial court improperly addressed the jury. After approximately one-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the foreman of the jury told the trial judge that the jury was hung at ten to two, without indicating which way their votes were split. The trial judge asked both the State and Williams if they agreed for him to give them the Sharplin charge. Both the State and Williams consented. There was no error. The trial judgeís comment about the numerical split was not coercive, but simply a statement of fact. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict, because the evidence failed to support that Williams took the victimís property ďfrom the person or from the presence.Ē Whether the victim handed Williams her purse or whether she told Williams to get it himself from the passenger seat is not the point. The point is that Williams pointed a gun at her and demanded money, which he ultimately got.|