Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01287-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01287-COA ; 2009-CT-01287-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-07-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Amendment of indictment - Section 97-3-7(2)(a) & (b) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2009 Appealed from: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THREE YEARS TO SERVE, SEVEN YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF SUPERVISED PROBATION, AND TO PAY A $2,500 FINE AND $250 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 08-213-LS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Yalanda Johnson |
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| 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: | Aggravated assault - Amendment of indictment - Section 97-3-7(2)(a) & (b) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Yalanda Johnson was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to ten years, with seven years suspended, three years to serve, and five years of supervised probation. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment The indictment did not state under which subsection the charge of aggravated assault was brought; however, the State specified that it was proceeding under section 97-3-7(2)(a). Johnson argues that the trial court erred by indirectly amending the indictment during trial to allow the State to proceed under section 97-3-7(2)(b) rather than section 97-3-7(2)(a). During her motion for a directed verdict, Johnson argued that the State had failed to prove she was guilty of aggravated assault under section 97-3-7(2)(a). Johnson argues that despite the trial court’s statement that it was not altering the indictment, the statement that the jury must decide if “the telephone was a sufficient bludgeoning instrument” showed that the trial court was requiring proof under section 97-3-7(2)(b) - assault “with a deadly weapon.” Johnson argues that as a result of the trial court’s statement, jury instruction nine was erroneously proposed by the defense and granted by the trial court. Johnson proposed jury instruction nine and cannot now complain that the trial court erred in granting the instruction. Nevertheless, any possible confusion caused by jury instruction nine was remedied by the State’s aggravated-assault instruction, which followed the language of section 97-3-7(2)(a). Taken as a whole, the jury instructions followed the indictment and fairly announced the law of the case. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that the State failed to prove the elements of aggravated assault. The victim testified that Johnson pushed her head into a neon sign hanging in the window and hit her multiple times in the back of the head with a telephone receiver. The jury also heard testimony that Johnson sustained no injuries, while the victim required medical attention for injuries to both her head and arm. A rational trier of fact, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was guilty of committing all the elements of section 97-3-7(2)(a). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
