Ford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KP-00278-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-13-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Accomplice instruction - Illegal indictment - Section 99-7-2 - Section 97-37-37(1) - Inconsistent verdicts - Right to decline to testify - Criminal record - Change of venue - Recusal of judge - Sufficiency of evidence - Continuance - URCCC 2.04 - Voir dire - Mistrial - Expert witness Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-19-2009 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2009-0043 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Stevenson Ford |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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 - Accomplice instruction - Illegal indictment - Section 99-7-2 - Section 97-37-37(1) - Inconsistent verdicts - Right to decline to testify - Criminal record - Change of venue - Recusal of judge - Sufficiency of evidence - Continuance - URCCC 2.04 - Voir dire - Mistrial - Expert witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stevenson Ford was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Ford argues that the circuit court should have granted an accomplice instruction. However, the circuit actually granted Ford’s request for a cautionary accomplice instruction. Ford also argues that the circuit court erred when it refused his proffered jury instruction on the presumption of innocence. However, the court gave an instruction which was substantially the same as Ford’s proffered instruction. A criminal defendant is not entitled to an instruction that is covered elsewhere by another instruction. Issue 2: Illegal indictment Ford argues that the indictment against him is illegal. Ford’s reasoning is based on the fact that Count I of the indictment included a murder charge and a charge that Ford qualified for enhanced sentencing because he used or displayed a firearm during the commission of the murder. According to Ford, the indictment was illegal because it contained two charges within the same count in violation of section 99-7-2. Ford is correct that where two or more offenses are properly charged in separate counts of a single indictment, all such charges may be tried in a single proceeding. However, Ford’s misunderstanding is based on the difference between a charge versus a sentence enhancement. By claiming that Ford qualified for enhanced sentencing as set forth in section 97-37-37(1), the prosecution did not seek to prove that Ford was guilty of a separate offense. The enhancement charge was not a charge of a separate crime. Instead, the prosecution sought to increase the penalty that Ford faced in the event that he was found guilty of murder. Issue 3: Inconsistent verdicts Ford argues that the jury must have been confused, because it found him guilty of murder, but it found that he did not qualify for enhanced sentencing pursuant to section 97-37-37(1). According to Ford, because the jury did not find that he qualified for enhanced sentencing pursuant to section 97-37-37(1), the jury was obligated to find him not guilty of murder. However, Ford is procedurally barred from arguing this issue because he did not cite any relevant legal authority. Issue 4: Right to decline to testify Ford argues that the circuit court failed to inform him properly of his right to decline to testify. However, the record shows that Ford was informed of his right to choose not to testify. Ford was also informed that, if he opted to forego testifying, the jury would have been instructed that it must not hold his silence against him. Issue 5: Criminal record Ford argues that the circuit court erred when it refused to allow him to introduce the criminal record of the victim. However, the record does not indicate that Ford ever attempted to have the criminal record introduced into evidence. Thus, the issue is barred. Issue 6: Change of venue Ford argues the circuit court should have changed the venue. This issue is procedurally barred because he raises it for the first time on appeal. Issue 7: Recusal Ford argues that the circuit judge should have recused herself because she was a friend of the victim’s grandfather. Ford never moved for recusal. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 8: Sufficiency of evidence Ford argues that the jury’s verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. To be held criminally liable as an aider and abetter in the commission of a felony, one must incite, encourage, or assist the actual perpetrator in the commission of the crime. Viewed in the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, there was evidence that Ford ordered a co-defendant to follow a person. There was evidence that Ford ordered the co-defendant to stop outside the victim’s house. There was evidence that Ford got out of the car and fired a pistol. And there was evidence that the victim was killed by a bullet that was fired from a pistol. Accordingly, reasonable, fair-minded jurors could have found Ford guilty. Issue 9: Continuance Ford argues that the circuit court should have granted his motion for a continuance to give Ford’s attorney time to prepare for testimony from a co-defendant who was being extradited from Texas. The record does not indicate that the circuit court heard or ruled upon Ford’s motion for a continuance. Pursuant to URCCC 2.04, it is the duty of the movant, when a motion or other pleading is filed, to pursue that motion to hearing and decision by the court. Issue 10: Voir dire Ford argues that, during voir dire, the prosecution presented facts of the case that should not have been presented. Ford has failed to cite relevant authority for this issue. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 11: Mistrial Ford argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on testimony by a witness. By instructing the jury to disregard Lee’s testimony, it is clear that the circuit court sustained Ford’s objection. When a trial judge sustains an objection to testimony and directs the jury to disregard the statement, it is presumed, unless otherwise shown, that the jury followed the directions of the trial judge to disregard such comment or testimony. Ford does not attempt to demonstrate that the jury did not follow the circuit court’s instructions. Ford also argues the court should have granted a mistrial based on an officer’s testimony. However, Ford does not attempt to explain how he suffered prejudice from the testimony at issue. The officer’s testimony did not implicate Ford. In addition, Ford failed to demonstrate that the jury could not have disregarded the officer’s testimony. Issue 12: Expert witness Ford claims the circuit court erred when it allowed a witness to testify as an expert witness in the field of forensic firearms. Because Ford merely asserted that the circuit court erred when it accepted the witness as an expert witness without explaining why the circuit court erred, this issue is procedurally barred on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
