Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01674-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01674-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Defense theory instruction - Necessity instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-16-2005 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON AND SENTENCED TO SERVE THREE YEARS IN THE MDOC AND TO PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000. District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN Case Number: 2004-096-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jermaine Williams a/k/a Crap |
PHILLIP BROADHEAD, RAYMOND L. WONG |
||
| 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: | Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Defense theory instruction - Necessity instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jermaine Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Williams was sentenced to three years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues that he was entitled to a jury instruction that presented his entire theory of the case, i.e., that it was “reasonably necessary to arm himself in violation of the law in order to prevent Payton from killing him.” Self-defense is not a viable defense to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a criminal act void of a third party to defend against. Regarding the trial court’s refusal to grant Williams’ request for a necessity instruction, William must prove, in order to be entitled to a defense of necessity, that the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil, there was no adequate alternative, and the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. The evidence in the case at bar does not justify a necessity instruction, as Williams failed to prove that there was no adequate alternative. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
