Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-00504-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00504-COA ; 2010-CT-00504-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-23-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery & Aggravated assault - Juror challenge - Co-defendants’ guilty pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Unsworn statement - Prosecutorial misconduct - Cautionary instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-24-2010
Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court
Judge: David H. Strong
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY, AND COUNT II, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR COUNT I AND TWENTY YEARS FOR COUNT II, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Dee Bates
Case Number: 2009-216-PKS-1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Kendrick Lamar Williams a/k/a Scooter




CYNTHIA A. STEWART



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

    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: Armed robbery & Aggravated assault - Juror challenge - Co-defendants’ guilty pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Other bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Unsworn statement - Prosecutorial misconduct - Cautionary instruction

    Summary of the Facts: Kendrick Williams was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated assault. The circuit court sentenced him to life and twenty years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Juror challenge Williams argues that the circuit court erred in allowing a certain juror to sit on the jury. However, the record shows that the juror in question was not seated on the jury, as Williams acknowledges in his reply brief. Issue 2: Co-defendants’ guilty pleas Williams argues that the State erred in eliciting testimony regarding the guilty pleas that the co-defendants entered. Williams is correct that evidence that a co-defendant pleaded guilty to the same crime as a defendant is generally inadmissible. However, the testimony in question was not objected to by Williams at trial. In general, issues that were not raised at trial are barred from consideration on appeal. Also, all co-defendants testified at trial; therefore, Williams had the opportunity to question them regarding their guilty pleas and possible motivations for pleading. A defendant’s opportunity to question codefendants regarding their guilty pleas weighs against a finding of error regarding the admission of evidence regarding those same guilty pleas. Also, the factual basis for the co-defendants pleas was different from the factual basis of Williams’s crime. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his trial counsel failed to object to the evidence regarding his co-defendants’ guilty pleas. Since the co-defendants all testified regarding their involvement in the crime, the evidence regarding their guilty pleas was of much less impact than it would have otherwise been. Furthermore, the evidence of Williams’s guilt was overwhelming and included eyewitness testimony from Williams’s victim. Thus, the outcome in this case would not have been different if Williams’s attorney had objected at trial. Issue 4: Other bad acts Williams argues that the court erred by admitting testimony by the victim that he encountered Williams after the robbery. The testimony was apparently elicited to show that the victim had correctly identified Williams as his assailant. While evidence of extraneous bad acts is generally inadmissible, M.R.E. 404(b) allows such evidence if it is offered to show something other than the defendant’s guilt, such as proof of identity. After the victim finished describing the incident to the jury, the prosecutor immediately questioned the victim regarding his identification of Williams in light of the incident. Issue 5: Unsworn statement Williams argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to introduce a prior unsworn statement by the victim into evidence. The prior statement was cumulative and repetitive of the victim’s testimony at trial. Given the overwhelming weight of the evidence against Williams, there is no reversible error on this issue. Issue 6: Prosecutorial misconduct Williams argues that remarks by the prosecutor in his closing statement constitute prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to require a reversal of his case. There was no objection to the statement, and Williams’s argument is consequently procedurally barred. In addition, when viewed in context, the prosecutor was merely responding to Williams’s attorney’s remarks during closing argument. Issue 7: Cautionary instruction Williams argues that the circuit court improperly refused his proposed jury instruction on the credibility of accessories. However, defendants are not entitled to cautionary instructions regarding the testimonies of accessories after the fact.


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