Williams v. State
2014 Miss. LEXIS 171
| Miss. | 2014Background
- On March 10, 2011, a confidential informant (Long) conducted a controlled buy from Craig Williams; during the transaction Williams brandished what Long believed was a handgun, demanded money, struck Long with the object, and fled.
- Officers chased and arrested Williams (age 15), recovered $280 from his shoe, and recovered a broken object later identified as a pellet/BB gun; Williams admitted the gun was his and confessed to the robbery.
- Williams was indicted under Miss. Code § 97-3-79 for robbery with a deadly weapon; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 25 years (12 to serve) plus 13 years post-release supervision.
- On appeal Williams argued: (1) the broken BB gun was not a "deadly weapon" as a matter of law; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the legal definition of "deadly weapon"; and (3) an instruction saying the victim "need not actually see a deadly weapon" misstated the law.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding the deadly-weapon question was properly for the jury and that the instructions, read as a whole, did not produce a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the broken BB gun was a "deadly weapon" under § 97-3-79 | The submitted BB gun was broken/inoperable and could not be a deadly weapon as a matter of law | Whether an instrument is a deadly weapon is a factual question for the jury; the object was presented to the jury for inspection | Court: Not a matter for directed verdict; jury properly decided; issue without merit |
| Whether failure to give a jury instruction defining "deadly weapon" denied a fair trial | Court should have given a Duckworth/Davis-style definition instructing jurors how to decide if an object is a deadly weapon | Instruction S-1 listed all elements of armed robbery and permitted acquittal if element not proved; instructions read as a whole were sufficient | Court: No plain error; S-1 adequately stated elements; omission did not cause manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Whether instruction that victim "need not actually see a deadly weapon" was misleading | That instruction allows conviction based solely on victim perception and undermines statutory requirement of actual exhibition | The State presented direct evidence of an actual object and the issue was still submitted to the jury; Dambrell permits constructive exhibition when a reasonable person would believe a weapon is present | Court: Instruction S-2 (based on Dambrell) was not controlling error here; presence of the actual BB gun made the point inconsequential; issues without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Cittadino v. State, 24 So.2d 93 (Miss. 1945) (legislative purpose of armed-robbery statute and inference from exhibitory threat)
- Duckworth v. State, 477 So.2d 935 (Miss. 1985) (question whether unusual instrument is a deadly weapon is for the jury)
- Saucier v. State, 562 So.2d 1288 (Miss. 1990) (BB/pellet gun could be deadly weapon; issue for jury)
- Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694 (Miss. 1988) (approved jury instruction defining deadly weapon as object which, when used as a weapon under the circumstances, is reasonably capable of producing death or serious bodily harm)
- Gibby v. State, 744 So.2d 244 (Miss. 1999) (held victim's mere assumption of weapon insufficient—later overruled)
- Dambrell v. State, 903 So.2d 681 (Miss. 2005) (overruled Gibby; adopted concept of constructive exhibition: overt act plus reasonable belief a deadly weapon is present suffices)