Walker v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-KA-01104-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-01104-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-01-2006
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault - Photographs - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403(b) - Admission of evidence - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2004
Appealed from: Pontotoc County Circuit Court
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG
Case Number: CR00-153

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Eddie L. Walker




JAMES P. JOHNSTONE



 

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 - Photographs - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403(b) - Admission of evidence - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 609 - M.R.E. 404(b)

Summary of the Facts: Eddie Walker was convicted of aggravated assault and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Photographs Walker argues that the foundation for the admission of photographs of the crime scene had not been properly laid and that the photographs offered no probative value. Not only did Walker fail to object to the photographs but the record is clear that the foundation for the admission of the evidence was laid through the testimony of an officer. Also, the photographs were relevant and probative under M.R.E. 401 and 403(b). Issue 2: Admission of evidence Walker argues that the court abused its discretion by allowing the tire iron to be entered into evidence, because little evidence was put forth to establish that the tool was the same tire iron used in the incident. The victim, who identified the tire iron at trial, testified that he had used the very same tire iron for many years during his employment at the automotive shop. Also, the officer testified that the tire iron produced at trial was the one that he recovered from the scene. Thus, the testimony at trial was sufficient to establish the authenticity of the tire iron. Issue 3: Prior conviction Walker argues that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of Walker’s prior conviction for aggravated assault. Walker also argues that the State failed to provide advanced written notice of its intent to utilize Walker’s past aggravated assault conviction as required by M.R.E. 609 (b). M.R.E. 609 (b) provides that the State must give advanced written notice of its intent to introduce evidence of a conviction more than ten years old if more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction whichever is the later date. Although Walker was convicted more than ten years prior to the State’s attempt to introduce the evidence at trial, Walker was only released one year prior to his trial. Thus, the issue of notice is without merit. M.R.E. 404(b) states that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. M.R.E. 609 (a)(1)(B) states that impeachment by evidence of conviction of a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the party. It would be unfairly prejudicial to a defendant to conclude that because the defendant committed a wrong act in the past, he must have committed the act that is the basis of his current charge. However, the State may introduce evidence of another crime separate and distinct from the crime charged for the purposes of showing identity, guilty knowledge, intent or motive, or where the offense charged is so interwoven with other offenses that it cannot be separated. The State argues that because the defendant committed aggravated assault in the past, he could not have acted in self-defense in the present instance. This line of logic represents precisely the sort of unfair prejudice prohibited by M.R.E. 404 and M.R.E. 609. The State must not be allowed to show that a defendant was the primary aggressor in a given case by mere virtue of his past bad acts, nor does merely asserting the defense of self-defense puts one’s character in issue. The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.


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