Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00080-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2010 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted armed robbery - Cautionary accomplice instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Graves, P.J., Dickinson, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlson, P.J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Waller, C.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2008 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Following a jury trial, Willie L. Williams, Jr., was convicted of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration with ten years to serve. District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2007-0089-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Willie L. Williams, Jr. |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN, LESLIE S. LEE, ROSHARWIN LEMOYNE WILLIAMS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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: | Attempted armed robbery - Cautionary accomplice instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie L. Williams, Jr., was convicted of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration with ten years to serve. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues that the judge erred in refusing a cautionary jury instruction regarding accomplice testimony. When determining whether a defendant is entitled to such a cautionary instruction, the trial judge considers whether the witness was in fact an accomplice and whether the witness’s testimony was corroborated. Although granting a cautionary instruction regarding the testimony of an accomplice is within the trial judge’s discretion, such an instruction is required when the accomplice’s testimony is the sole basis for the conviction, and the defendant’s guilt is not clearly proven. The controlling principle is that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict an accused. However, the general rule is inapplicable in those cases where the testimony is unreasonable, self contradictory or substantially impeached. In such cases, the trial court must direct a verdict of not guilty. Both the State and Williams argue that the accomplice’s testimony must be “self-contradictory” or “substantially impeached” to warrant a cautionary instruction, but the cases on which they rely address the sufficiency of the evidence. To the extent that any cases suggest that accomplice testimony must be “unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached” before a cautionary jury instruction is required, they are overruled. For a defendant to be entitled to a cautionary jury instruction, it is only necessary that the accomplice’s testimony be uncorroborated. In determining whether a cautionary jury instruction is required, the testimony that must be corroborated is the testimony tying the defendant on trial to the crime, and it is irrelevant whether other portions of the accomplice’s testimony are corroborated. In this case, there is nothing, other than the testimony of the two accomplices, tying Williams to the crime. Without their statements, the evidence would have been insufficient to support a conviction, a fact that is undisputed by the State. A cautionary jury instruction is required even though multiple accomplices testify and may corroborate each other. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
