Summerall v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00110-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 02-09-2010 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: The judgment of the Forrest County Circuit Court is reversed, a judgment of acquittal is rendered, and the appellant is discharged. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of dirk knife by convicted felon - Vagueness of statute - Section 97-37-5 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, C.J., and Carlton, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-13-2008 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A CONVICTED FELON AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 08-100CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Shauntell Summerall a/k/a Shauntell Maurice Summerall |
LESLIE S. LEE, JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Possession of dirk knife by convicted felon - Vagueness of statute - Section 97-37-5 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shauntell Summerall was convicted of possession of a dirk knife by a convicted felon and sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Vagueness of statute Summerall argues that section 97-37-5 is unconstitutionally vague because it provides insufficient notice of the contemplated conduct it prohibits. When a statute is challenged for vagueness, the Court considers whether the statute defines the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness such that a person of ordinary intelligence has fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. Section 97-37-5 explicitly prohibits convicted felons from possessing dirk knives. Indeed, the term “dirk knife” is prominently listed among the four specific knives that, if merely possessed by convicted felons, give rise to criminal liability. A statute is not rendered unconstitutionally vague merely because its words or terms are not specifically defined. Given that Summerall fails to demonstrate an individual of ordinary intelligence would not comprehend the prohibited conduct, this issue lacks merit. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Summerall argues that the State offered insufficient evidence to prove the knife in question was a prohibited dirk knife. The parties stipulated to Summerall’s felony status and did not seriously contest his possession of the knife. The central issue at trial, and now on appeal, is whether Summerall possessed a “dirk knife.” Neither the Mississippi Legislature nor the Supreme Court has ever defined the term “dirk knife.” Summerall’s knife was discovered in a sheath depicting the insignia of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. However, the record contains only a photograph of the knife and sheath, and does not mention the origin or identity of the knife’s manufacturer. In the case In re Jesse QQ, 243 A.D.2d 788, 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997), a New York appellate court held that the modern test for a dirk is whether the instrument has a blade with a least one sharpened edge which tapers to a point and is primarily intended for use as a stabbing weapon. The State suggests Mississippi should employ a standard based on the subjective intent of the possessor. However, to do so would require revisions to section 97-37-5, which as it stands employs a strict-liability standard prohibiting the mere possession of a dirk knife by a felon – regardless of the intended use. Though the knife in question, much like a pocket knife, box cutter, balisong knife, or steak knife, could be a dangerous instrument in the hands of a person with criminal intent, the issue is what the statute proscribes as unlawful, not simply what might be dangerous. The knife at issue is not prohibited by Mississippi law. To qualify as a dirk knife, the weapon must have a blade with at least one sharpened edge which tapers to a point and be designed primarily for use as a stabbing weapon. There is no conflicting evidence in the record that Summerall’s knife lacks common utilitarian purposes. Nor is there testimony to show his knife is suitable primarily, if not exclusively for stabbing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
