Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01412-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Weight of evidence - Impeachment - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2003 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF SUPERVISED PROBATION, FINE OF $1,223.50 AND RESTITUTION OF $6,875.14. Case Number: CR01-076 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Harris, Jr. |
MICHAEL LEE DULANEY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault - Weight of evidence - Impeachment - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Harris, Jr. was found guilty of aggravated assault and received a ten year sentence with ten years suspended and five years supervised probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Harris argues that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all necessary elements of aggravated assault. There were two competing theories as to whether Harris or the victim was the initial aggressor in the altercation. The difference between the two theories is the state of mind of Harris and it is the role of the jury to determine which theory is most accurate. The jury chose to believe the testimony of the victim, which possessed the necessary elements of aggravated assault. Issue 2: Impeachment Harris argues that the prosecution engaged in an improper line of questioning in his cross-examination, involving his plea of guilty to marijuana possession twenty-three years earlier. When a defendant opens the door by testifying on direct examination that he is pure as the driven snow, it is permissible for the State to impeach him by inquiring into past arrests as well as other bad acts which go to the veracity of the defendant’s direct testimony. Because Harris opened the door regarding his credibility in his direct examination, the line of questioning presented by the State was proper. Issue 3: Lesser included offense instruction Harris argues that the court erred in denying his jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. The difference between simple assault and aggravated assault lies in the statutory language “with a deadly weapon.” There is no question that Harris did in fact inflict the injuries with a deadly weapon. Therefore, no instruction for simple assault was required. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Harris argues that the State failed to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The crime of aggravated assault is complete when a person willfully attempts to cause bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Since injuries having been proved and the jury construed the evidence against Harris, the State’s evidence is not lacking as to any essential element of the crime. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Harris argues that his counsel was ineffective allegedly due to her failure to interview a list of potential defense witnesses, failing to gather a copy of the victim’s criminal record in order to impeach his testimony at trial, and failing to submit a jury instruction which properly stated the law as to the defense’s theory of the case, namely simple assault. Counsel’s actions of which Harris complains are trial strategy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
