Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00900-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: The judgment of the Circuit Court of Tunica County as to Count I, aggravated assault, is reversed and remanded for a new trial. The judgment as to Count II, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, is reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault & Possession of weapon by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-37-5(1) - Evidence of prior felony conviction - Retroactive misjoinder - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, J., with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Joined in part and in result by Barnes, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2009 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI S S I S S I P P I DEPA R TME N T OF CORRECTIONS AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AND COUNT II, FELON IN POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI S S I S S I P P I DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH ALL SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell Case Number: 2009-0029 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jackson Williams, Jr. |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| 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: | Aggravated assault & Possession of weapon by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-37-5(1) - Evidence of prior felony conviction - Retroactive misjoinder - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jackson Williams, Jr. was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a guilty verdict on the possession of a weapon by convicted felon count as the pocket knife used in the altercation is not one of the weapons that section 97-37-5(1) deems unlawful for a convicted felon to possess. The knife was introduced in evidence during trial, and according to descriptions elicited in the record, the knife is a small ordinary pocket knife with a two-and-a-half-inch blade. The State agrees with Williams’s interpretation of the statute and concedes that the knife could not be described as a knife prohibited from possession by a felon by section 97-37-5(1). This count is reversed and rendered. Williams also argues that the introduction of evidence of his prior felony conviction was improper and prejudicial. The State argues that Williams is procedurally barred from making this argument because he stipulated to the fact that he was a convicted felon. Williams essentially asks the Court to adopt what some courts have labeled “retroactive misjoinder” or “spillover prejudice.” Retroactive misjoinder occurs when joinder of multiple counts was initially proper but, through later developments such as an appellate court’s reversal of less than all convictions, joinder has been rendered improper. A majority of jurisdictions that have faced this issue use a two-factor test that asks whether any of the evidence used to prove the reversed count would have been inadmissible to prove the remaining count. If the answer is “yes,” then it must be determined whether the verdict on the remaining count was affected adversely by the evidence that would have been inadmissible at a trial limited to that count. The Court adopts the doctrine of retroactive misjoinder. It occurs when a trial or appellate court determines that while joinder of two or more counts against a defendant was initially proper, one or more of those counts should be vacated. Furthermore, if the defendant can show that he suffered clear and compelling prejudice as a result of the evidence introduced to support the vacated count, he is entitled to a new trial on the remaining count(s). To determine if a defendant was prejudiced, the Court considers whether evidence was admitted at trial on the vacated count that would not have otherwise been admissible on the remaining count and, if so, whether the defendant can demonstrate clear prejudice as a result of the inadmissible evidence that was presented to the jury. In making this determination, the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s trial are vitally important as a finding of prejudice will vary from case to case. The strength of the State’s case against the defendant on the remaining count, the specific evidence presented in connection with the vacated count, and other pertinent details of the defendant’s case and trial should be analyzed in determining if the defendant was prejudiced. Applying this test in the present case, Williams was clearly prejudiced during his trial as a result of the inclusion of his prior felony conviction into evidence. It is clear that Williams’s prior conviction would not have been admissible under any rule of evidence given the type of crime he was convicted of and when he was convicted in Tennessee, when filtered through M.R.E. 403. The jury was repeatedly reminded that Williams was a convicted felon. Additionally, the jury was neither instructed to consider Williams’s prior conviction solely in consideration of the felon-in-possession count nor was it instructed to consider each count separately. In terms of Williams’s claim of self-defense, it was a close case. Williams’s credibility as a witness was substantially eroded when the trial judge, not once, but twice told the jury that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense. Given that there was insufficient evidence on the first count, the jurors should have never known of Williams’s twenty-five-year-old prior felony conviction. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
