Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01522-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-01522-SCT ; 2010-KA-01522-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Photographic lineup - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Flight instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-10-2010 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO FORTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH TWENTY-FIVE YEARS TO SERVE, FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIFTEEN YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH FIVE YEARS SUPERVISED AND TEN YEARS UNSUP ERVISED Case Number: 2009-0181-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Markeith Williams a/k/a Markeith Deantwon Williams |
JANE E. TUCKER
JAMES W. CRAIG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Armed robbery - Photographic lineup - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Flight instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Markeith Williams was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to forty years, with twenty-five years to serve, fifteen years suspended, and fifteen years of post-release supervision, with five years supervised and ten years unsupervised. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identification Williams argues that the photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive because his photograph clearly differed from the other individuals pictured in the lineup and that the in-court identifications by two witnesses were tainted by their initial identification of Williams by way of a single photograph. A lineup or series of photographs in which the accused, when compared with the others, is conspicuously singled out in some manner from the others, either from appearance or statements by an officer, is impermissibly suggestive. An impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification, however, does not preclude in-court identification by an eyewitness who viewed the suspect at the procedure, unless from the totality of the circumstances surrounding it the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Factors to be considered include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Review of the photographic lineup shows that three other individuals had hairstyles similar to Williams’s, though in varying lengths. Additionally, even though Williams claims that no one else depicted in the lineup had facial hair similar to his, three other individuals had facial hair similar to Williams’s, and it is unclear from Williams’s photograph whether he had facial hair or not. Thus, Williams was not conspicuously singled out. While the two witnesses’ initial identifications by way of a single photograph were impermissibly suggestive, their identifications of Williams were nonetheless reliable. They testified that the area was well lit and they were able to get a good look at Williams’ face. Additionally, they both claimed to have recognized Williams from previous encounters. And, one of the witnesses identified Williams in a photographic lineup a few days after the robbery. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Williams argues that an officer’s testimony—that he was familiar with Williams and had obtained a photograph of him from the “jail’s computer”— prejudiced the jury and violated M.R.E. 404(b). This issue is barred because Williams failed to object at trial. In addition, the testimony fell within the proof-of-identify exception to Rule 404(b). In addition, under M.R.E. 403, the probative value of the testimony outweighed its potential prejudicial effect—especially where Williams’s “jail photo” was not introduced into evidence, was not repeatedly referred to, and was used only to identify Williams. Issue 3: Flight instruction Williams argues that the circuit court erred in giving a flight instruction. A flight instruction is appropriate only where that flight is unexplained and somehow probative of guilt or guilty knowledge. Evidence of flight is inadmissible where there is an independent reason for the flight known by the court which cannot be explained to the jury because of its prejudicial effect upon the defendant. Here, the officer testified that Williams stated that he ran from the police on the evening of October 7 because he “didn’t want to get caught.” The statement does not constitute a sufficient independent reason for fleeing and is probative of guilty knowledge. As such, the circuit court did not err in giving a flight instruction. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew objections to pretrial identifications of him, for failing to object to the officer’s testimony, and for failing to object to the flight instruction. Williams’s trial counsel raised an objection at the suppression hearing because two witnesses identified Williams from a single photograph. However, the circuit court found that the identification procedures were not so impermissibly suggestive as to make the identification evidence unreliable. Consequently, there was no reason for trial counsel to make an additional objection to the identification evidence at trial. The officer’s testimony was admissible and not prejudicial. Also, the circuit court did not err in giving the flight instruction to the jury. Thus, Williams’s argument is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
