Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00803-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-17-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 404 - Challenge for cause - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-06-2010 Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Convicted of Aggravated Assault and Sentenced to Twenty Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with Eight Years Suspended and Five Years of Supervised Probation District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2009-0006CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joseph Williams a/k/a Too Sweet |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 404 - Challenge for cause - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Williams was convicted of aggravated assault and was sentenced to twenty years, with eight years suspended and five years of supervised probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of evidence At trial, Williams was identified by his nickname, Too Sweet, on several occasions. The prosecutor used the nickname twice in his opening statement and once in his closing argument. Two witnesses used the nickname a total of five times. In addition, the jury instructions referred to “Williams a/k/a Too Sweet.” Williams argues that the nickname served no evidentiary purpose and that the prosecutor used it merely to inflame the jury and should have been excluded as inadmissible character evidence under M.R.E. 404. Williams failed to raise a contemporaneous objection to use of the nickname at trial. Therefore, this issue is barred from consideration on appeal unless the circuit court committed plain error. There is no plain error here. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 2: Challenge for cause Williams argues the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. He argues that the juror should have been stricken because she was friends with one of the State’s key witnesses. A person is competent to be a juror if the juror has no interest, bias or prejudice in the prosecution, and the juror has no desire to reach a result other than that gained from the evidence and the law in the case. Jurors take their oaths and responsibilities seriously, and when a prospective juror assures the court that, despite the circumstance that raises some question as to his qualification, this will not affect his verdict, this promise is entitled to considerable deference. Here, the juror assured the circuit court that her friendship with the witness would not affect her judgment. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in accepting her assurances and allowing her to sit on the jury. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he shot the victim “purposely” or “knowingly.” His defense was that he suffered from post-traumatic-stress syndrome, which occasionally caused him to blackout. There was ample evidence for a rational juror to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams shot the victim either purposely or knowingly. The victim testified that he and Williams had gotten into an argument. The victim testified that he was standing behind the truck when Williams came around from the driver’s side and opened fire on him. Williams shot the victim eight or nine times. A rational juror could infer that Williams repeatedly shot the victim out of anger aroused by their argument. Since there was evidence that Williams was aware of his actions both before and after the shooting, a rational juror could infer that he was aware of his actions at the time of the shooting. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
