Davis v. State, 55704
| Decision Date | 25 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 55704,55704 |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 608 |
| Parties | Betty Milan DAVIS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thomas Morris, Ellis Turnage, Morris & Turnage, Cleveland, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Betty Milan Davis was found guilty in the Circuit Court of Tunica County, Mississippi, on an indictment charging aggravated assault, and was sentenced to ten (10) years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. She has appealed to this Court, and assigns two errors in the trial below.
About 2:30 a.m. on August 21, 1982, appellant and Goldie Judd engaged in a fight at Grandberry's Cafe in Tunica County, Mississippi. It was discovered later that both women were armed. Bystanders separated the lady gladiators. Two of them were holding appellant and restraining her until someone shouted that Goldie had a gun, whereupon they immediately released her. Appellant took a handgun from her purse and began firing (four or five times) at, and in the direction of, Goldie. Lee Nie Washington, Goldie's boyfriend and escort, was in close proximity to her, and Washington was shot three (3) times, the bullets striking him in the left arm, wrist and thigh. Goldie also was hit by one of the bullets. After the shooting, appellant left Tunica County and went to Memphis where she remained for two weeks, thinking that she had killed Goldie. She voluntarily returned to Tunica County and was arrested upon a charge of aggravated assault.
Appellant contends under this assignment that the lower court committed error in admitting testimony that Goldie was shot at the time of the Washington shooting, and in admitting testimony of appellant that she left Tunica County and went to Memphis for approximately two weeks. She claims that this testimony was evidence of other crimes and was reversible error. We disagree. Where the offense charged and other offenses offered in evidence are so connected as to constitute one transaction, the evidence is admissible. Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342 (Miss.1977). The shooting of Washington and Goldie were so interwoven and close in point of time that they also constituted a part of the res gestae.
Appellant was asked on cross-examination what she did after the shooting, and her response was that she went to Memphis where she stayed for approximately two weeks, because she thought she had killed Goldie. The testimony was part of an orderly presentation of the State's case and was an explanation of where she went and what she did immediately after the shooting. It further explained the reason for the delay in apprehending, charging and arresting appellant. On redirect examination, counsel for appellant inquired of her why she went to Memphis and showed that she returned of her own volition.
We do not think that the lower court committed reversible error in admitting this testimony.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A
CRIME CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.
Appellant contends that the indictment charges her with aggravated assault upon Washington in that she purposely and knowingly attempted to cause bodily injury to Washington with a deadly weapon. Washington testified on cross-examination that he and appellant did not know each other and there was no reason for appellant to shoot him, and, therefore, she did not intend to shoot him. The aggravated assault statute under which the indictment was drawn follows:
Sec. 97-3-7. Simple assault; aggravated assault.
* * *
(2) A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or (b) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers v. State
...State, 530 So.2d 694 (Miss.1988); McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss.1987); Robinson v. State, 497 So.2d 440 (Miss.1986); Davis v. State, 476 So.2d 608 (Miss.1985). ¶ 29. In Mackbee, the State was dealing with two crime scenes and two bodies found in the trunk of the defendant's car. This ......
-
Flowers v. State
...series of transactions in relation to the crime charged. Robinson v. State, 497 So.2d 440, 442 (Miss.1986). See also Davis v. State, 476 So.2d 608, 609 (Miss.1985). Rule 404(b) is not a blanket prohibition of evidence of other actions. Where the evidence might be relevant in another manner,......
-
Mackbee v. State
...State, 530 So.2d 694 (Miss.1988); McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss.1987); Robinson v. State, 497 So.2d 440 (Miss.1986); Davis v. State, 476 So.2d 608 (Miss.1985). be single and that the evidence should be limited to what is relevant to the 'single' issue. Evidence of a prior criminal act......
-
McGowen v. State
...series of transactions in relation to the crime charged." Id. (citing Robinson v. State, 497 So.2d 440, 442 (Miss.1986); Davis v. State, 476 So.2d 608, 609 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 39. In Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330 (Miss.1982), the defendant, who was convicted of simple assault on a law enforc......