Crook v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-01528-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01528-COA ; 2010-CT-01528-SCT ; 2010-CT-01528-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-10-2012
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault - Self-defense instruction - Prosecutorial misconduct - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Roberts, Carlton and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Barnes, J.
Dissent Joined By : Griffis, P.J., Ishee and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-23-2010
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION
District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers
Case Number: 09-523-CR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Wilbert Crook a/k/a Wilbert Donnell Crook




LESLIE S. LEE, PHILLIP BROADHEAD



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT  

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 - Self-defense instruction - Prosecutorial misconduct - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Wilbert Crook was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years as a habitual offender, without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Self-defense instruction Crook argues it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse his jury instruction on the standard of reasonableness used to assess whether he acted in justifiable self-defense. When one jury instruction adequately covers the defendant’s theory of self-defense, the trial court may properly refuse a second instruction that is redundant or cumulative. The trial judge gave six separate jury instructions touching on self defense. The jury was instructed that the State had to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it must acquit Crook if it found the stabbing was caused by accident and misfortune during the fight. Thus, the trial judge sufficiently instructed the jury on Crook’s theory of self-defense. Crook claimed he was holding the box cutter, and the victim fell on it during the struggle. In short, he claimed he protected himself but that the victim’s stabbing was accidental—a defense about which the jury was specifically instructed. Crook made no mention of a misapprehension or mistaken belief of imminent danger on his part. There is no misapprehension or mistaken belief later brought to light by after developed facts. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Crook argues that the prosecutor made several improper comments during closing argument rebuttal that inflamed the jury and attacked Crook’s constitutional rights, thereby prejudicing him and resulting in an unfair trial. Prosecutors are not permitted to use tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. The standard of review for lawyer misconduct during opening statements or closing arguments is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. With regard to two of the comments about which Crook complains, the defense did not object so any error is waived. In addition, Crook was not unjustly prejudiced by any of the comments. Absent these comments, the jury could have found Crook guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Crook argues the jury verdict was against the sufficiency of the evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence that Crook was the initial aggressor and did not act in self-defense. A witness testified Crook pulled the box cutter out of his pocket. Another witness testified that the victim put the fan blade back in the vehicle and did not hit Crook with it. Although the witness did not see Crook stab the victim, he did see Crook’s arm move when Crook had the victim in a headlock, and then there was blood everywhere. Further, another witness testified that Crook told him he had cut someone.


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