Wright v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01729-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-01729-SCT ; 2005-KA-01729-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-05-2007 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary & Rape - Mistrial - Comment on defendant’s failure to testify - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1) - M.R.E. 803(1) - M.R.E. 803(3) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, J. Dissent Joined By : Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-24-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: The Lauderdale County Circuit Court found Willie Joe Wright guilty of burglary and rape. He was sentenced to serve two consecutive twenty-five year sentences. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 582-04 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Joe Wright |
CRAIG A. CONWAY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Burglary & Rape - Mistrial - Comment on defendant’s failure to testify - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 801(d)(1) - M.R.E. 803(1) - M.R.E. 803(3) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Wright was convicted of burglary and rape and was sentenced to serve two consecutive twenty-five year sentences. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial Wright argues that, in two instances during closing argument, the state improperly commented on his failure to take the stand in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. He made timely objections and moved for a mistrial in each instance, but his motions were denied. With regard to the first instance, defense counsel did not object on the basis of the prosecutor’s alleged improper comment on the defendant’s failure to testify, but on the basis that the prosecutor’s comment was contrary to the trial court’s instructions stating that the defendant was not required to “prove anything.” There is an obvious difference between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on defendant's failure to put on a credible defense. The comment by the prosecutor in the present case was not error, but instead was appropriate, based on the status of the record at the time the comments were made in closing arguments. Wright argues that the prosecutor’s comment bears a strong resemblance to that in Livingston v. State, 525 So. 2d 1300 (Miss. 1988), in which the Court held that any comment by a prosecutor regarding the defendant’s failure to testify was incurable, reversible error. Livingston and its progeny are overruled to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion because the reversal of Livingston’s conviction was based in large part on an evidentiary statute which has since been repealed, and the Court in Livingston erroneously interpreted the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). With regard to the other comment to which Wright objects, the state was simply pointing out that the defense’s position, i.e., that the victim agreed to have sex with Wright, was unsupported by the evidence. Under our current precedence, this does not amount to a Fifth Amendment violation. Issue 2: Hearsay Wright argues that the court erred by improperly admitting hearsay evidence during the testimony of a witness. The witness’s statement was not intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show why the witness was at the victim’s home. Thus, it was not hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c). Wright further objected the witness’s recitation of his conversation with the victim regarding the rape. However, the court properly admitted the testimony under M.R.E. 801(d)(1) since the victim had already testified and been cross-examined by Wright. In addition, the statement was admissible under M.R.E. 803(1) and 803(3). The prosecution had established through the witness’s testimony that the victim was upset and crying when she made the statements, and that he had arrived between 30 and 35 minutes from the time the rape occurred. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Wright argues that the state has failed to meet its burden in establishing the elements of burglary. The victim stated that Wright told her he entered the apartment through the kitchen window, and this was also consistent with the testimony of the other two witnesses, both of whom said the kitchen window was either open or tampered with. The victim further testified that Wright had tried to touch her earlier that day, had made unsuccessful sexual advances on prior occasions, and when she awoke he was standing by her bed. Based upon this evidence, a rational juror could have found the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright also argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him for rape. Two witnesses corroborated the victim’s story with additional testimony regarding her condition immediately after the incident; there was also evidence stipulated by the parties regarding Wright’s semen being found in the victim’s body. Thus, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Wright guilty of rape. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
