Speagle v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-00493-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00493-COA ; 2005-CT-00493-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-22-2006
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter & Possession of firearm by felon - Special venire - Section 13-5-77 - Sequestration of jury - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence
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: 12-15-2004
Appealed from: Perry County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
District Attorney: JON MARK WEATHERS
Case Number: 5098

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Jimmy Wallace Speagle




EARL LINDSAY CARTER, JR.



 

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: Manslaughter & Possession of firearm by felon - Special venire - Section 13-5-77 - Sequestration of jury - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Jimmy Speagle was convicted of the crimes of manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury selection Speagle argues that he was prejudiced because the court failed to comply with the directives of section 13-5-77 upon his request for a special venire. Though the court denied Speagle’s motion for special venire in fact, the motion was granted in effect. The court held that the jury which had been summoned as a grand jury would instead be treated as a special venire. Considering the timing of the motion and the court’s efforts to accommodate Speagle, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Speagle’s motion. Speagle also argues that the court erred by failing to sequester the jury in his case. However, the record shows that Speagle’s counsel never pursued a ruling on the motion to sequester. Thus, there is no ruling which he can appeal. Speagle also argues that the court’s refusal to allow individualized sequestered voir dire of the jury pool in his case constitutes reversible error, as it was necessary due to the amount of publicity surrounding his case. The few jurors who stated during voir dire that they had heard about the case claimed that they would be able to set aside what little knowledge they had, and render a fair and impartial decision. Thus, nothing in the record supports Speagle’s argument. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Speagle argues that the court erred in allowing the State to amend his indictment. The prosecution was granted leave to amend the indictment in order to correct a slight misnaming of the victim; to correct the recitation of venue; and, in the portion of the indictment charging Speagle with possession of a firearm by a felon. The test for whether a change is one of form or substance is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made. It is clear that the amendments made to Speagle’s indictment were of form only, not of substance, and in no way affected his defense. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Speagle argues that the court erred in failing to invoke the Weathersby rule and grant him a peremptory instruction, because his account of the shooting is absolutely uncontradicted by any of the physical or testimonial evidence. Because Speagle’s testimony was contradicted by physical and testimonial evidence, the court did not err in denying Speagle the benefit of the Weathersby rule.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court