Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01412-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-02-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault, Kidnapping & Unlawful possession of a firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - On-the-record balancing test - M.R.E. 403 - Photographs - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-15-2004 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: Jones was convicted of aggravated assault, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of twenty, thirty and three years. District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 03,0240-CRV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anthony Jones |
THOMAS PERRY SETSER |
||
| 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: | Aggravated assault, Kidnapping & Unlawful possession of a firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - On-the-record balancing test - M.R.E. 403 - Photographs - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Jones was convicted of aggravated assault, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of twenty, thirty and three years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jones argues that the State had allegedly failed to prove Jones’ specific intent to support the aggravated assault conviction. The State supported its charge of aggravated assault against Jones with the eyewitness testimony of Eddie Butler. Butler testified that he saw the MDHS van pull out of the driveway at the house of the victim’s mother. Butler also observed the victim jump out of the van and the van turning back around heading east to catch the victim. Butler specifically observed that the van swung back in such a fashion so as to accomplish a “perfect hit” on the woman in flight. Butler’s testimony, when coupled with the undisputed facts, clearly proved the element of intent necessary to support the State’s charge of aggravated assault. With regard to the kidnapping conviction, Jones argues that the State’s only evidence of kidnapping is the testimony of the victim, which was directly contradicted by Jones and is not credible inasmuch as she has a history of shoplifting and providing false information. This was a case of conflicting evidence presented to a jury on a factual dispute, and the jury obviously resolved the credibility issues against Jones. Additionally, there is corroborating testimony regarding the surrounding circumstances that Jones was in possession of a gun on the date of the incident, and that the victim jumped from her own van and took flight. With regard to the third charge against Jones, the State not only presented two witnesses attesting to the fact that Jones was in possession of a firearm, the State also introduced Jones’ handgun into evidence with additional proof that the gun was recovered when Jones was arrested. Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Jones argues that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence concerning Jones’ assault of the victim which occurred on the day before the incident for which Jones was ultimately indicted. Under M.R.E. 404(b), proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences. The evidence stemming from Jones’ earlier assault on the victim is clearly admissible under the exceptions to Rule 404(b). Not only are Jones’s actions relevant to his motive for tracking Thomas down and assaulting her again the following day, they also directly pertain to the continuing act of violence to the extent that Jones ultimately accomplished a series of interrelated criminal acts which began the day before. Issue 3: On the record balancing test Jones argues that he has been denied his due process rights based on the trial court’s failure to perform an on-the-record balancing test pursuant to M.R.E. 403 with regard to the assault which occurred on the day before the incident in question. Evidence which is deemed admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of its resultant unfair prejudice. While a judge’s on-the-record analysis is recommended as it serves to fortify the judge’s position for purposes of review, the lack of such analysis is harmless unless the evidence is patently prejudicial. The judge’s failure to perform an on-the-record Rule 403 analysis in no way affected Jones’ rights. Issue 4: Photographs Jones argues that admitting photographs of the victim’s injuries constituted reversible error to the extent the photographs were unnecessarily gruesome and highly prejudicial. The State had the responsibility of presenting a credible story to the jury which accurately depicted the events and the injuries which resulted from the incident. To this end, there is little doubt that the photographs had probative value inasmuch as they provided substantial support to the testimony offered by the State’s witnesses. Issue 5: Circumstantial evidence instruction Jones argues that the only evidence produced regarding his intent to commit aggravated assault was circumstantial and that the circuit court committed reversible error when it refused to submit his two-theory or circumstantial evidence instruction. A circumstantial evidence instruction should be given only when the prosecution is without a confession or eyewitness to the gravamen of the offense charged. Jones clearly misinterprets the law of this state in regards to circumstantial evidence. Issue 6: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that his counsel at trial performed ineffectively to the extent he did not attempt to admit evidence of the victim’s alleged fraudulent dealings with MDHS. Jones’ claim that he should be afforded a new trial based on his lawyer’s failure to submit this questionable evidence clearly fails to hurdle the high standards by which ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
