Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00411-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Mistrial - Expert testimony - Sufficiency of evidence 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: 04-18-2003 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: JOYCE IVY CHILES Case Number: 2000-474 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dexter Williams |
WILLIAM C. TROTTER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Mistrial - Expert testimony - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dexter Williams was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to serve a term of life without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to adequately investigate his case prior to trial. Williams cites the attorney’s failure to review a disk containing all of the photographs taken by the State’s expert witnesses and the attorney’s decision not to call a defense expert witness. The attorney’s decision not to call an expert witness is a strategic decision. With regard to the photographs, Williams has failed to show how the outcome of the trial would have been different. Issue 2: Mistrial Williams argues that the court erred in overruling two motions for a mistrial made during the State’s closing arguments. The court sustained Williams’ objections to both of the State’s comments. After Williams moved for a mistrial, the court instructed the jury to disregard the State’s comment. When the trial court admonishes the jury to disregard a statement, it is presumed that the jury will follow the court’s instructions and there are no unusual circumstances in this case sufficient to overcome the presumption. Issue 3: Expert testimony Williams argues that the court committed reversible error in allowing Dr. Hayne to testify as to the cause of the victim’s burns, because there was insufficient evidence to support Dr. Hayne’s conclusion. In Mississippi, a forensic pathologist may testify as to what caused the victim’s injuries and what trauma the injuries would produce. Moreover, a forensic pathologist’s testimony concerning the victim’s wounds, suffering, and the means of infliction of injury falls within the bounds of his expertise. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the State’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, and that the State’s proof failed to establish sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The State presented substantial evidence that supports the verdict. Both Dr. Love and Dr. Hayne testified that the victim did not suffer splash burns and that her injuries were consistent with being held or, immersed, in hot water. Moreover, Dr. Hayne’s testimony, that a two-year-old child in a bathtub filled with hot water would not have full-thickness burns on the bottom of her feet if her feet came into contact with the cooler surface of the bottom of the bathtub, reasonably excluded the possibility that the victim stepped into the bathtub. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
