Young v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00240-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00240-COA ; 2010-CT-00240-SCT ; 2010-CT-00240-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-30-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Impeachment of witness - Imperfect self-defense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-13-2010 Appealed from: Wayne County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 09-32-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Lonnie Young a/k/a Xmoe Dragon |
AAFRAM YAPHET SELLERS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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: | Murder - Impeachment of witness - Imperfect self-defense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lonnie Young was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Impeachment of witness Young argues that he was prejudiced by the circuit court’s denial of his attorney’s attempts to impeach a witness who testified for the defense, as a hostile witness. A witness may be impeached by the party calling him if he is proven to be hostile, but before a witness may be impeached, that party must first show surprise as to the witness’s comments and show that the witness is hostile. It is clear from the record in this case that the witness’s in-court testimony did, in fact, contradict her previous statements made to the police investigator. As such, she was a hostile witness, and Young should have been able to impeach her testimony. However, the jury nonetheless was able to view the relevant portion of the witness’s comments during the police investigation. After the video tape was played and the circuit court sustained the State’s objection, the court did not instruct the jury to disregard any of the witness’s testimony. Thus, the jury was able to weigh her trial testimony against statements she had previously made to the police. Further, Young failed to resolve the inconsistencies on redirect. Issue 2: Imperfect self-defense instruction Young argues that he was prejudiced by the circuit court’s denial of his imperfect self-defense jury instruction. While a criminal defendant is entitled to jury instructions which present his theory of the case, the circuit court may properly refuse instructions which incorrectly state the law, have no evidentiary basis, or are covered fairly elsewhere. Under the theory of imperfect self-defense, an intentional killing may be considered manslaughter if done without malice but under a bona fide (but unfounded) belief that it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm. The facts and testimony presented in this case do not justify a theory of imperfect self-defense because there is no evidentiary foundation to support a finding that Young shot the victim without malice or in the heat of passion. On cross-examination, Young stated that he had not argued with the victim earlier that day. Young also admitted that he did not usually carry a weapon and had no reason to believe that the victim had a gun, but he nonetheless armed himself in anticipation of an altercation with the victim before he went to the party. Young admitted that he did not shoot the victim in the heat of passion, during an argument, or shortly after an argument had occurred. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to convict Young of murder. Young admitted that he armed himself and intentionally went to the reunion to confront the victim. He also admitted that he did, in fact, shoot the victim. All other eyewitnesses to the crime identified Young as the shooter, and they stated that the victim did not have a gun in his hand when Young shot him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
