Gates v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01059-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2006 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Jury instruction - Victim’s character - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Hearsay - Leading question - M.R.E. 611(c) - Lay testimony - M.R.E. 701 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Diaz, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J., and Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2005 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and to pay a fine of $5,000 plus all costs of court with ten years of said sentence suspended and probation for five years. District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 04-CR-079-LE-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie James Gates |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Jury instruction - Victim’s character - M.R.E. 404(a)(2) - Hearsay - Leading question - M.R.E. 611(c) - Lay testimony - M.R.E. 701 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Gates was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years, with ten years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Gates argues that the trial court erred in refusing his jury instruction that the defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf. However, defendants are not entitled to an instruction which informs the jury that the defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf. Issue 2: Character of the victim Gates argues that it was proper to question the victim regarding a purported prior incident in justice court some weeks or months before the shooting at hand as any allegation of a violent tendency of the victim was pertinent to Gates’ defense. Not only were the purported charges in justice court too remote in time to have any bearing on the case at hand, but the line of questioning proffered did not provide any evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. Also, the jury was clearly provided information evidencing the personal animosity that existed between Gates and the victim. Therefore, the testimony was not admissible under M.R.E. 404(a)(2) to prove a character trait for violence. Issue 3: Hearsay Gates argues that the court erred in sustaining the State’s hearsay objection when the victim was testifying about what Gates’ mother had said to him during a telephone conversation that transpired prior to the date when the aggravated assault occurred. Not only did the testimony amount to hearsay, but the testimony clearly did not have any bearing on the aggravated assault which occurred at a later date. Issue 4: Leading question Gates argues that the court erred by overruling his objection as to a leading question. The State’s question which prompted an objection as to leading was simply to ask the victim if his daughter’s name was Janice Body. The question was merely to provide a name for the victim’s daughter in the development of his testimony concerning how he arrived at the emergency room after being shot. Under M.R.E. 611(c), leading questions are frequently used in developing preliminary matters. Issue 5: Lay testimony Gates argues that the court erred in allowing an officer to testify as to whether the scratches on Gates’s car which he observed first hand, in the course of his investigation, were consistent with a Kyzar blade hitting the car. The officer testified that during the course of his investigation he interviewed Gates, and Gates claimed that the victim had attacked his car with a Kyzar blade with him inside the car prompting him to shoot the victim in self defense. M.R.E. 701 favors the admission of lay opinions when the witness has first-hand knowledge or observation and the opinion is helpful in resolving the issues. Here, the officer testified as to his personal experience with the use of Kyzar blades and his first-hand observation of the scratches on the car during the course of his investigation. Thus, the court did not err in admitting the testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
