Norris v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01254-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01254-SCT ; 2002-KA-01254-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-17-2004
Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sexual battery & Conspiracy to batter - Aiding and abetting instructions - Photographs - Other crimes’ evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-2002
Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court
Judge: Keith Starrett
Disposition: COUNTS I AND II, SEXUAL BATTERY: SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS ON EACH COUNT TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY; COUNT III, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEXUAL BATTERY: SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH COUNTS I AND II ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH TWENTY YEARS TO SERVE AND TWENTY YEARS ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, FINE OF $5,000 AND RESTITUTION OF $3,766.25
District Attorney: Dee Bates
Case Number: 01-447-KA-1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Byron Wendell Norris




THOMAS P. WELCH EDWIN L. BEAN DAWN LAVERNE STOUGH



 

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: Sexual battery & Conspiracy to batter - Aiding and abetting instructions - Photographs - Other crimes’ evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial

Summary of the Facts: Byron Norris was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and one count of conspiracy to batter. Norris was sentenced to serve two twenty-year consecutive sentences and to a five year concurrent sentence. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Aiding and abetting instructions Norris argues that the judge erred in allowing a jury instruction referring to aiding and abetting when he was not charged with aiding and abetting in the indictment. Any person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an aider and abettor and is equally guilty with the principal offender. The instructions in question do not request the jury to find Norris guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting but explains that if the jury believes Norris did aid and abet then he should be guilty of the crimes charged. It is clear both Norris and another man worked in concert. The jury instruction referring to aiding and abetting was not intended to convict on that issue but, rather, to convict Norris of the overall crime he helped the other man to commit. Issue 2: Photographs Norris argues that allowing photographs of the victim and her injuries to be introduced into evidence were irrelevant to the charge he was on trial for because they imply an assault that he was not charged with. Because the photographs supported the victim’s claim the sexual encounter was non-consensual and was the result of force on the part of Norris and the other man, the court did not err in admitting them into evidence. Issue 3: Other crimes’ evidence Norris argues that the court erred in admitting an officer’s testimony regarding his interview with the victim, because it related to the crime of assault which he was neither charged with nor on trial for. Because the State has a legitimate interest in telling a rational and coherent story of what happened and to present to the jury the complete story of the crime, evidence or testimony may be given even though it may reveal or suggest other crimes. Here, the testimony was necessary for the jury to understand the significance of what occurred to make the rape possible. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Norris argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney should have impeached a witness in a particular situation; his attorney did not have prior trial experience; his attorney did not conduct an independent investigation; his attorney was not familiar with the crime scene; his attorney failed to subpoena people to provide favorable testimony; his attorney did not raise at trial that Norris was denied his right to a speedy trial; his attorney was appointed twenty-five days prior to trial; and his attorney failed to object to hearsay testimony. The instances he raises against his attorney appear to be either irrelevant to the substance of the case or would have no impact on the verdict itself. Issue 5: Right to speedy trial Norris argues for the first time on appeal that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Issues cannot be based on assertions in the briefs alone. In addition, Norris failed to show any prejudice which might have resulted from the delay.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court