Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00581-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00581-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-15-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child fondling - Newly discovered evidence - Discovery violation Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-17-2002 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: CHILD FONDLING - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS ON COUNT I AND FIFTEEN YEARS ON COUNT II, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 01-KR-0163-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy J. Williams |
PAMELA A. FERRINGTON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Child fondling - Newly discovered evidence - Discovery violation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Williams was found guilty of two counts of child fondling. He was sentenced to serve fifteen years on each count, to be served concurrently. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Newly discovered evidence Williams argues that new testimony, which consisted of a statement made by one of the victims that Williams never touched her, was incorrectly treated as impeachment evidence by the judge. Testimony which only impeaches a witness's trial testimony does not constitute grounds for a new trial. While a witness testified that prior to the trial, one of the victims had told him Williams had not touched her, the two victims testified that neither of them had ever recanted their original testimony and that their testimony at trial was completely truthful. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Issue 2: Discovery violation Williams argues that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after a witness for the prosecution made statements on the witness stand that had not been disclosed to Williams. The statement was not known to either side until the day of the trial, and the court found that it was a discovery violation and that the jurors would be instructed to disregard the statement. If a defendant who has been surprised by undisclosed discoverable evidence does not request a continuance at the time of such surprise, he waives this issue on appeal. Williams asked that the statement be stricken and the jury admonished not to consider it. The court granted this request. Williams did not request a mistrial or a continuance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
