Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-01904-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01904-SCT ; 2001-CT-01904-SCT ; 2001-CT-01904-SCT ; 2001-KA-01904-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-29-2003
Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Rape & Simple assault - Duty to resist instruction - Lesser-included offense instruction - Exhibit - Charge to jury - Mistrial - Continuance - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Chandler, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2001
Appealed from: Prentiss County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Bowen
Disposition: CONVICTED OF RAPE AND SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS; CONVICTED OF SIMPLE ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS
District Attorney: Arch Bullard
Case Number: CR99-138

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Russell D. Williams




THOMAS H. COMER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS  

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: Rape & Simple assault - Duty to resist instruction - Lesser-included offense instruction - Exhibit - Charge to jury - Mistrial - Continuance - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Russell Williams was convicted of rape and simple assault. He was sentenced to twenty years for rape and six months in county jail for simple assault. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instructions Williams argues that the court erred in refusing to grant his proposed instruction addressing the rape victim's duty to resist. The record shows that the jury was properly instructed on the concept that a rape victim must physically resist the sexual advances of the rapist or submit under a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm in the form of another proposed instruction. Williams also argues that the instruction as given was an incomplete statement of the law on the subject because of its failure to address the concept of “tactical surrender.” There is no requirement that the jury be specifically informed of the concept of “tactical surrender,” but “tactical surrender” is merely illustrative of one particular situation where one of the two underlying alternative concepts of law concerning the duty to resist comes into play. Here, the jury was adequately instructed on the relevant issues. Issue 2: Lesser-included offense instruction Williams argues that the court erred in refusing to give a lesser-included offense instruction on simple assault to the rape charge. A lesser offense charge is correctly excluded if there is no evidentiary basis for it. Here, there was no contention by the defense that Williams attempted, but was unable to complete, the act of engaging in sexual intercourse through the exercise of raw physical force. Although Williams also argues that the court erred by declining to instruct the jury as to other possible lesser offense charges, including sexual battery, the only lesser offense charge actually requested by Williams was that of simple assault. Issue 3: Exhibit Williams argues that the court erred by allowing the introduction into evidence of a packet of letters written by the defendant and apparently intended for the victim. Although a thorough reading of the contents of all the letters does not necessarily indicate a person intent on committing an act of rape, the decision to admit these letters, for whatever probative value the jury might find them to have, was not an abuse of the court’s discretion of sufficient magnitude to require reversal. Issue 4: Mistrial Williams argues that the court erred in referring to the amount of work that went into the trial when instructing the jury to resume deliberations. Although it would have been better for the court not to have made the oral remarks concerning the investment of time and resources in the case, the actual formal charge given to the jury instructing them to continue to attempt to resolve their apparent impasse was one approved by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The court’s verbal remarks that preceded the correct instruction did not so taint the jury in its work as to render its subsequent verdict so suspect that reversal is required. Issue 5: Continuance Williams argues that the court erred in admitting photographs depicting new locks that had been placed upon the victim’s doors. Not only did the defense fail to raise any other available issues relating to alleged discovery violations, but the admission of the photographs, even if admitted in error, did not affect the fundamental fairness of the trial to the extent of reversible error. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the rape conviction, because the victim did not physically resist his advances and the gun which the State contends put the victim in fear of imminent serious injury or death was physically out of his reach. The victim’s testimony that she felt compelled to submit to the defendant’s demands for sexual relations because he was armed with a gun and that she felt like a trapped animal in that situation was sufficient for the jury to infer that her capitulation was more than the tactical decision to surrender that is urged by the defense. The jury could conclude that there was the requisite measure of immediacy in the threat to her person to make her decision to submit an involuntary one within the meaning of the rape laws of this State.


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