Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00851-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00851-COA ; 2005-CT-00851-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape & Sexual battery - Peremptory challenges Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-24-2005 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, STATUTORY RAPE, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND UPON RELEASE FROM THE TERM OF INCARCERATION PLACED UNDER A TERM OF FIVE YEARS OF NON-REPORTING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AND CONVICTED OF COUNT II, SEXUAL BATTERY, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I. District Attorney: JOHN CHAMPION Case Number: CR2003-209-B-P2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tommy Lee Jones |
JOHN CARL HELMERT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Statutory rape & Sexual battery - Peremptory challenges |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tommy Jones was convicted of statutory rape and sexual battery and sentenced to serve terms of fifteen years and twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jones argues that the court erred in finding that the State made a prima facie case that Jones had used his peremptory strikes to exclude members of a certain racial group from the jury. Jones used six peremptory strikes, five of which applied to five Caucasian males. After the State voiced its objection, Jones proceeded to provide race-neutral reasons for his strikes. When racially neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes are given, the question of the sufficiency of the prima facie case is moot. Jones argues that the court erred in not making explicit, on-the-record findings regarding Jones’s race-neutral reasons for his peremptory strikes against the jurors, and that the court erred in finding that his peremptory strikes were improper. The court was clearly unpersuaded by the attorney’s arguments, and this assessment stemmed from the court’s prior experience with the attorney, the attorney’s demeanor, the arguments he advanced regarding the strikes, and the arguments advanced by the State. Jones also argues that the court denied him the use of his peremptory strikes in not allowing him to strike the jurors after the court denied the peremptory strikes. Jones exercised his six peremptory strikes against jurors 18, 20, 29, 39, 63, and 65– the trial court did not “take” the strikes from him. Furthermore, under the mandatory language of URCCC 10.01, Jones is not entitled to additional peremptory strikes due to his failure to use the strikes for non-discriminatory purposes. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
