David v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01593-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Self-defense instruction - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., and Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2008 Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James McClure, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR22007-16M(T) |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | THOMAS E. DAVID A/K/A THOMAS EUGENE
DAVID |
B. BRENNAN HORAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Self-defense instruction - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas David was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to fifteen years, with five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Other bad acts David argues that when evidence of other crimes or bad acts are offered as evidence under M.R.E. 404(b), such evidence may not be admitted unless it also passes the M.R.E. 403 filter. When a trial court determines that potentially prejudicial evidence possesses sufficient probative value, it is within that court's sound discretion whether or not to admit the evidence, “since Rule 4 03 does not mandate such an exclusion but rather states that the evidence may be excluded. David’s counsel argued that a witness’s testimony about an incident which occurred months after the assault charge had no relevance to the case and that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Other bad acts or crimes is admissible to show intent under Rule 404(b). Here, the evidence was offered to show David’s state of mind, and the trial court weighed the probative value of this evidence against the potential for undue prejudice. Issue 2: Self-defense instruction David argues that a jury instruction on self-defense should have been included based on the disparity in size between the victim and David and the testimony at trial. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Here, the proposed jury instruction was another instruction on the theory of self-defense and was, therefore, cumulative. Issue 3: Excessive sentence David argues that his sentence of fifteen years with five years of post-release supervision was excessive. Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. Because David’s sentence was within the statutory guidelines, there is no basis to regard David’s sentence as excessive. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
