Jones v. State, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 410

Jones and Taylor were tried jointly for aggravated assault and felon-in-possession; Taylor convicted on both counts, Jones convicted of aggravated assault but acquitted on felon-in-possession; Court of Appeals affirmed, then Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to review Jones’s claims of inconsistent verdicts and faulty jury instructions.
The State’s trial theory was that Jones or Taylor fired the shot that hit Camisha Cleveland or aided and abetted in the assault.
Witnesses testified about who fired or possessed weapons; some testimony was impeached or recanted, but the jury ultimately found Jones guilty of aggravated assault and acquitted him of felon-in-possession.
Jones challenged (1) voir dire issue about Count II’s prior-conviction element, (2) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault, (3) whether Jones aided and abetted Taylor, and (4) whether plain-error review was appropriate for the aggravated-assault instruction.
The Court affirmatively held the jury instruction errors were not reversible per se and that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supported Jones’s aggravated-assault conviction; it adopted the Court of Appeals’ analyses on issues that were procedurally barred.
The dissent argued the aggravated-assault instruction created plain error by directing a guilty verdict for Jones even if Taylor acted alone, and would have reversed for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Jones’s aggravated-assault conviction?	Jones argues inconsistency with Taylor’s convictions undermines sufficiency.	State contends evidence supports Jones’s conviction despite acquittal on felon-in-possession.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports aggravated assault given Sellers’s testimony and circumstantial proof.
Should the court address plain-error in the aggravated-assault instruction?	Jones contends plain error due to aiding-and-abetting phrasing and conflicting instructions.	State argues procedural bar but merits considered.	Procedurally barred; merits discussed and held no plain error under the circumstances.
Did the jury instructions create hopeless conflict affecting the verdict?	Dissent argues instruction directed guilt if Taylor acted alone.	Majority finds instructions read together correctly informed jurors.	No reversible error; instructions read as a whole properly conveyed law.
Were the verdicts inconsistent, affecting review of weight or sufficiency?	Inconsistent verdicts require reviewing only the guilty verdict’s sufficiency/weight.	State asserts proper analysis under inconsistent verdicts doctrine.	Inconsistent verdicts do not, by themselves, overturn convictions; examine the valid guilty verdict.

Holloman v. State, 656 So.2d 1134 (Miss. 1995) (inconsistent or contradictory verdicts are not, by themselves, grounds for reversal)
Sanders v. State, 63 So.3d 497 (Miss. 2011) (review focuses on the guilty verdict; weigh evidence only for that count)
Edwards v. State, 797 So.2d 1049 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (verdicts—weight of evidence rule in inconsistent verdicts)
Massey v. State, 992 So.2d 1161 (Miss. 2008) (credibility not reviewable on weight of the evidence)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (weight of evidence standard on sufficiency review)
Johnson v. State, 908 So.2d 758 (Miss. 2005) (requires correct legal principles in jury instructions)
Harden v. State, 59 So.3d 594 (Miss. 2011) (read instructions as a whole; not in isolation)
Martin v. State, 415 So.2d 706 (Miss. 1982) (caution on oral vs. written instructions)
Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss. 2001) (approved aiding-and-abetting instruction; reconciles with other instructions)
Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388 (Miss. 2009) (main purpose of jury instructions to inform amounts of facts to find)
Sanders v. State, 63 So.3d 554 (Miss. 2010) (weight of the evidence addressed separately from legal sufficiency)
Wilson v. State, 254 Miss. 275, 179 So.2d 792 (1965) (circuit judge instruction writing standard)