Taylor v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02384-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-02384-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-22-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - M.R.E. 103 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-21-2004 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2)(a) (Rev. 2006). District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 03,02370-CRV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bobby Taylor |
JAMES L. PENLEY, JR. |
||
| 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: | Aggravated assault - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 - M.R.E. 103 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Taylor was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and was sentenced to fifteen years with the last five years suspended on post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts Taylor argues that the court erred in allowing the State to admit evidence of prior acts of domestic violence. On the stand, the victim denied that the defendant had ever hurt her before. When asked about four prior charges which she filed against the defendant, she either denied filing them or claimed that she could not remember. She also testified that the entire incident at issue was an accident. As a result, the prosecutor was allowed to introduce four separate instances in which the victim had filed domestic violence charges against the defendant, both as impeachment evidence and as substantive evidence of motive. The evidence was not admitted to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with his prior bad acts, but to rebut his allegation that the incident was an accident. Therefore, the properly admitted evidence of the prior domestic violence charges as evidence of motive and absence of accident under M.R.E. 404(b). The defendant also argues that these incidents should not have been admitted under M.R.E. 403 because they were highly prejudicial to the defendant. Because the evidence was highly relevant to show motive and absence of accident, it cannot be said that the judge abused his discretion in admitting the prior charges. Issue 2: Expert testimony Taylor argues that the court erred in admitting the expert testimony of a fire inspector who investigated the fire and testified regarding the burn patterns on the victim’s body. Before allowing her to testify, the trial court conducted a Daubert hearing and found that she was qualified to give expert testimony under M.R.E. 702. The court found that because of her training and experience, the expert was able to apply reliable principles and methods to the facts of the case and offer her expert opinions on the burn pattern. In light of the Daubert hearing and the expert’s training and experience, the judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing her to give expert testimony on the burn patterns. Issue 3: Discovery violation Taylor argues that the court erred by allowing the State to introduce affidavits from prior charges filed by the victim because these documents had never been produced by the State. M.R.E. 103 provides that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. Under Rule 9.04 (A) of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, the State was required to provide a copy of the defendant’s criminal record to defense counsel prior to trial. The trial court was required to give the defense a reasonable opportunity to examine the affidavits. However, because the defendant is unable to show prejudice or that a substantial right was affected, the issue is without merit. Because trial counsel was aware of the previous charges, he could have easily discovered the contents of the affidavits. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Taylor argues that the evidence could not support his conviction because even though both experts agreed that a liquid was poured on the victim, they could not testify as to how the liquid ignited and the ignition could have been accidental. It is clear from the record that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of aggravated assault. Although both the defendant and the victim argued the fire was an accident, the State offered substantial evidence to contradict their testimony. The defendant’s version of the story is simply not supported by the physical evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
