Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01383-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01383-COA ; 2005-CT-01383-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-24-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault & Kidnapping - Admission of 911 tape - Habitual offender status - Challenge for cause Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Southwick, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-04-2005 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: COUNT I - CONVICTED OF SIMPLE ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO SERVE SIX MONTHS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY JAIL AND COUNT II - CONVICTED OF KIDNAPING AND SENTENCED TO SERVE THIRTY YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER District Attorney: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. YOUNG Case Number: CR04-016 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Samuel Tyrone Williams |
JOHN CARL HELMERT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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: | Simple assault & Kidnapping - Admission of 911 tape - Habitual offender status - Challenge for cause |
| Summary of the Facts: | Samuel Williams was convicted of simple assault and kidnaping. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to six months in the county jail for simple assault and to serve a consecutive sentence of thirty years for kidnaping. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of 911 tape Williams argues that the judge erred in allowing his wife’s 911 call to be played to the jury, because the statements were testimonial. Testimonial, out-of-court statements by witnesses are barred by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness, regardless of whether the statements are deemed reliable by the court. Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Here, the statements are not testimonial, and are therefore not barred by the Confrontation Clause. Williams’ wife called 911 in desperation to find her friend, whom she believed had been abducted by Williams. The statements did not go to prove Williams’ guilt or innocence. Even if the statements could be considered testimonial, their admission constituted harmless error due to the weight of the remaining evidence used to convict Williams. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Williams argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish him as a habitual criminal because the only evidence the trial judge reviewed was certified copies of two previous indictments and sentencing orders. Certified copies of indictments and sentencing orders are competent evidence of previous convictions. Therefore, the trial judge had sufficient evidence to sentence Williams as a habitual offender. Williams also argues that the court did not conduct a full bifurcated sentencing hearing. However, the record shows that the judge followed the proper procedure to address Williams’ habitual offender status. Issue 3: Challenge for cause Williams argues that the court erred in dismissing a juror for cause. Once the judge exercises his discretion and determines that the jurors probably could not be impartial, then the determination may not be assigned on appeal as error. Williams did not prove an obvious prejudice by the trial judge, and there is no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in excusing the juror for cause. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
