Gibson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00048-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Irving, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary rulings - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Mistrial Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: MURDER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-01-00626 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Allen Gibson, Jr. |
ROBERT CHARLES STEWART
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary rulings - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instruction - Mistrial |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Gibson, Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Gibson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay, failing to object to speculation, failing to object to improper medical testimony, failing to object to leading questions, failing to object to other irrelevant and/or improper evidence, improperly soliciting hearsay or other objectionable evidence, failing to request a mistrial or other relief, failing to request a manslaughter instruction, and failing to object to implicit remarks regarding Gibson’s decision to not testify. Gibson has made broad accusations which really have no solid underpinning in the record. Even if Gibson’s trial counsel was deficient, there is no reasonable probability that the proceeding would have been different given the plethora of evidence against him, including his confession that he killed the victim. Issue 2: Evidentiary rulings Gibson argues that the judge erred in many of his rulings. However, he fails to show how he was prejudiced by any of these rulings. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Gibson argues that the State failed to offer any credible evidence that he committed the crime charged with deliberate design or malice aforethought. The State offered ample evidence in support of Gibson’s conviction. Several witnesses testified that Gibson admitted killing the victim. Issue 4: Jury instruction Gibson argues that the court erred in giving an instruction which runs contrary to Mississippi law which provides that deliberate design cannot be presumed from the unlawful and deliberate use of a deadly weapon where the evidence adduced at trial established the circumstances surrounding the use of the weapon. Because the jury instruction provides in pertinent part that “intent may be inferred from the use of the weapon,” it is a proper instruction. Issue 5: Mistrial Gibson argues that the court erred in not granting a mistrial upon learning that a juror had withheld vital information during voir dire, and the jury was deliberating, not based on the evidence adduced at trial, but on extraneous facts and evidence having no relation to the case at hand. During the course of deliberations, a juror sent out a note stating that another juror had been in the same situation, that she had been with a man who she had sex with and that the man cut her throat afterwards. Based on only the note which came from a different juror than the juror mentioned in the note, the Court is unwilling to hold that the juror failed to properly respond to the voir-dire question. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
