Boyd v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00562-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2008 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Double jeopardy - Section 97-3-109(1) - Section 97-37-29 - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-09-2006 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Count I: Conviction of murder and sentence to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Count II: Conviction of shooting into an occupied dwelling and sentence to serve a term of ten (10) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count II shall run concurrently to the sentence in Count I. District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 11,421 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Everett Boyd |
Bernard C. Jones, Jr.; Laura Skeen Kuns |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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: | Murder & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Double jeopardy - Section 97-3-109(1) - Section 97-37-29 - Sufficiency of evidence - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Everett Boyd was convicted of murder while engaged in the crime of drive-by shooting and shooting into an occupied dwelling. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy Boyd argues that prosecuting and convicting him of both murder and shooting into an occupied dwelling deprived him of his Fifth Amendment protection from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. A conviction can withstand double-jeopardy analysis only if each offense contains an element not contained in the other. If they do not, the two offenses are, for double-jeopardy purposes, considered the same offense, barring prosecution and punishment for both. In order to obtain a valid conviction of felony murder as charged in this case, the state was required to prove under section 97-3-109(1) that Boyd caused serious bodily injury to another “purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life by discharging a firearm while in or on a vehicle.” Boyd’s second crime, shooting into an occupied dwelling, does not include this element. In order to obtain a conviction under section 97-37-29, shooting into an occupied dwelling, the state was required to prove that Boyd shot into a dwelling house. No such showing is required for a conviction under the felony-murder statute. Thus, each crime includes a necessary element not found in the other. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Boyd argues that, in prosecuting him under section 97-37-29, the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime, that is, that he “willfully” discharged a pistol into a dwelling house. The intent to commit a crime or to do an act by a free agent can be determined only by the act itself, surrounding circumstances, and expressions made by the actor with reference to his intent. Here, testimony by eyewitnesses amply supports the jury’s finding that Boyd “willfully” shot into an occupied dwelling. Boyd also argues that the state failed to establish that he had possession of the same caliber weapon that delivered the fatal shot. Because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Boyd shot the victim and caused his death, the absence of any evidence to establish that Boyd possessed the particular caliber weapon used to shoot the victim is irrelevant. Issue 3: Closing argument Boyd argues that certain portions of the state’s closing argument had no basis in evidence or fact. Because Boyd’s counsel failed to object to the statement in question, the issue is waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
