Ford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00478-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00478-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Perjury - Sufficiency of evidence - Number of witnesses Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-2004 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Michael McPhail Disposition: CONVICTED OF PERJURY AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR SAID OFFENSE, BEING THE TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PROBATION, PAROLE OR ANY FORM OF EARLY RELEASE. District Attorney: JON MARK WEATHERS Case Number: 04-241-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Billy Ray Ford, Jr. |
JONATHAN MICHAEL FARRIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Perjury - Sufficiency of evidence - Number of witnesses |
| Summary of the Facts: | Billy Ford, Jr. was convicted of perjury and was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ford argues that the State failed to satisfy the minimum of two witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances requirement, and Ford’s perjury conviction was improper because he did not in a direct and specific manner make the false statement he is accused of making. In order to convict on a charge of perjury, the prosecution must prove the falsity of the accused’s statement by a minimum of two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances. It is clear from the record that the State met this burden as it provided the testimony of two witnesses and introduced into evidence the federal documents that proved that Ford did not tell the truth. For testimony to be considered perjury, the witness must have testified with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. A witness’s state of mind is relevant only as to whether or not he believes his testimony to be true. Ford did not recite a literal truth that was simply unresponsive or misleading, rather he willfully and intentionally provided false testimony when he gave an affirmative response to the question posed to him. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to make the determination that Ford understood the question asked of him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
