Wallace v. State
166 So. 3d 520
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Two men fled a drive-by shooting in a Vicksburg duplex area; shell casings found nearby and later linked to Wallace's gun.
- Wallace was stopped on Interstate 20 with a co‑defendant passenger; Wallace produced a .40‑caliber pistol with four Federal cartridges.
- Ballistics tied a recovered projectile and the casings to Wallace’s gun; casings matched branding and characteristics.
- Wallace is paralyzed; investigators argued he could not have been the bed passenger, but could drive using pedal manipulation with a stick.
- Wallace and Lewis provided alibi timelines placing them at a club earlier; witness accounts confirmed Wallace’s presence at the club around the time of the shooting.
- Wallace was convicted on three counts: drive-by shooting, shooting into a motor vehicle, and shooting into a dwelling; he appeals challenging several trial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drive-by shooting element instruction | Wallace contends missing “knowingly or recklessly under extreme indifference” element. | State argues statute’s intent element is satisfied by attempted act; instruction was correct. | Instruction correct; no reversible error. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Wallace asserts counsel failed to request alibi and circumstantial-evidence instructions. | State contends no clear post‑conviction record to review on direct appeal; decision should be deferred. | Direct appeal denied without prejudice to post‑conviction relief. |
| Weight and sufficiency of the evidence | Wallace claims insufficiency or overwhelming weight against verdict. | Circumstantial evidence (shell casings, gunshot residue) supports conviction; alibi testimony weak. | Convictions supported by sufficient evidence; not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Juror misconduct and influence | Text message to juror alleged; claim of improper influence or duty to investigate. | No substantiated message; court investigated; no juror bias proven. | Issue procedurally barred; no abuse of discretion shown; no merit. |
| Amendment of the indictment | Count III amended from 1708 1/2 to 1708 without minutes reflecting order. | Procedural objection waived because not raised at trial; amendment allowed. | Waived; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolton v. State, 113 So.3d 542 (Miss. 2013) (defines essential elements and reversible error consideration)
- Morris v. State, 748 So.2d 143 (Miss. 1999) (interpretation of attempt and intent elements in analogous statutes)
- Harris v. State, 642 So.2d 1325 (Miss. 1994) (mutually exclusive 'intentional' and 'reckless' interpretations)
- Grayer v. State, 120 So.3d 964 (Miss. 2013) (circumstantial evidence instruction when no eyewitness or confession)
- McInnis v. State, 61 So.3d 872 (Miss. 2011) (definition of circumstantial evidence)
- Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468 (Miss. 1984) (Strickland framework overview)
- Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1983) (ripeness of appellate review for ineffective assistance claims)
- Tate v. State, 912 So.2d 919 (Miss. 2005) (procedural bar on issues raised on appeal)
- James v. State, 912 So.2d 940 (Miss. 2005) (juror-impropriety evaluation standards)
- Dunaway v. State, 398 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1981) (waiver of nonjurisdictional indictment objections on appeal)
- Sturgis v. State, 379 So.2d 534 (Miss. 1980) (minute-entry requirement for indictments; waiver rule)
- Waits v. State, 119 So.3d 1024 (Miss. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing new-trial rulings)
- Howard v. State, 945 So.2d 326 (Miss. 2006) (highly deferential standard in evaluating counsel’s performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance-prejudice framework for ineffective assistance)