Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00065-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Bowen Disposition: SMITH WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR01-312(B)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lolan Ray Smith |
WILLIAM C. STENNETT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lolan Smith was convicted of murder of his grandson. His grandson died after his grandmother’s house was set on fire. Smith was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Smith argues that no reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith was responsible for the fire because there was no physical evidence connecting Smith with the fire, such as muddy footprints or gasoline on Smith's clothes, and the evidence showed that he was at home during the fire and so intoxicated that he could not walk without assistance. From the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could infer that, before the fire began, Smith was not too intoxicated to have left his house without assistance and he drove to the house, started the fire, and returned to his house, and that Smith concealed any physical evidence. Alternatively, there was credible evidence from which a reasonable jury could have inferred that Smith hired someone to set the fire. The testimony concerning Smith's threats against his grandson and his requests that people burn his grandson's house down, constituted strong evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Smith possessed a deliberate design to effect his grandson's death. Issue 2: Circumstantial evidence instruction Smith argues that he was entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction. When the prosecution's evidence is wholly circumstantial, the accused is entitled upon request to a jury instruction that, before the jury may convict, it must find that the defendant's guilt of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The defendant's admission on a significant element of the offense obviates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction. Smith's statements before and after the crime about his desire to burn down his grandson's house and to kill him, and his requests that others burn down his grandson’s house, constituted admissions on deliberate design, a significant element of murder. Smith's admissions on a significant element of the offense for which he was convicted were direct evidence of his guilt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
