Hampton v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-00403-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-19-2010
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault & Attempted aggravated assault - Prejudicial conduct - Weight of evidence - Motion for severance
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-12-2009
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: GRACE: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION; HAMPTON: CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell
Case Number: 2008-0023

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Derrick Hampton a/k/a Margie Boo and Kandrin Kordel Grace a/k/a Ken




RICHARD B. LEWIS, PAUL THOMAS LEE JR., ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT  

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 & Attempted aggravated assault - Prejudicial conduct - Weight of evidence - Motion for severance

Summary of the Facts: Kandrin Grace was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years, with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Grace’s codefendant, Derrick Hampton, was convicted of attempted aggravated assault and sentenced to fifteen years, with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. They appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Prejudicial conduct Grace argues that the trial court made repeated use of “jocular” and “impious” comments, thereby compromising the solemnity of Grace’s trial. Grace also argues that the judge insinuated that potential jurors were being dishonest about their ability to remain unbiased. Grace failed to make a contemporaneous objection. In addition, the judge’s remarks did not deny Grace a fair trial. The comments to the jurors took place during voir dire in an effort to assure that an impartial jury was selected. Likewise, the majority of the references to laughter throughout the record occurred during voir dire, before the trial began. Moreover, the trial judge made no disparaging remarks regarding Grace or his codefendant. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Both Grace and Hampton argue that their guilty verdicts are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Grace argues that he believed the victim was going to shoot him. The victim testified that he exchanged words with Grace. However, he denied that he was armed or that he made any threatening remarks or gestures toward Grace prior to the shooting. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the verdict is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton argues that none of the witnesses actually saw him shoot a gun, and only one witness saw him point a weapon at the victim. Further, Hampton argues he did not test positive for gunshot residue; rather, he merely had particles indicative of gunshot residue on the palms of his hands. The testimony and evidence presented at trial, when examined in the light most favorable to the verdict, support the jury’s guilty verdict. A trace-evidence expert testified that finding gunshot residue on someone’s hands indicates that they have fired a weapon recently, been in close proximity to someone who had fired a gun, or that they handled a gun that had been fired recently. Finding the particles indicating gunshot residue on only the palms of Hampton’s hands does not lead to a conclusion that he did not fire a gun. The victim testified at trial that he saw Hampton run across the street with a gun in his hand, which he pointed at the victim. Another witness testified that he saw Hampton point a gun at the victim and that he heard shots coming from Hampton’s direction. The jury heard the conflicting testimony presented at trial and resolved it in favor of the State. Issue 3: Motion for severance Hampton argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion for severance. Two factors the court should consider in determining whether to grant a defendant’s motion to sever include whether the testimony of one co-defendant tends to exculpate that defendant at the expense of the other, and whether the balance of the evidence tends to go more to the guilt of one defendant than the other. Here, neither defendant testified at trial, and neither defendant offered evidence or testimony through defense witnesses that would tend to exculpate one at the expense of the other. Grace called no witnesses in his defense. Hampton called one witness whose testimony did not attempt to exculpate Grace at Hampton’s expense. Hampton’s defense was that he was not present at the shooting. Grace offered no testimony which undermined Hampton’s defense. Further, Grace’s argument that he acted in self-defense had no bearing on Hampton’s defense. Grace and Hampton were charged with separate crimes. The evidence at trial showed that both men pointed and fired guns at the victim. Because Grace succeeded in shooting the victim, he was charged with aggravated assault. Hampton failed in his attempt to shoot the victim, so he was charged with attempted aggravated assault.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court