Aubrey Walker v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-KM-02200-COA
AUBREY WALKER
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
9/25/2003
HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON, JR.
AMITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DEBORAH MCDONALD
DAVID M. READ
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTED OF ABUSE OF A VULNERABLE
ADULT AND FINED $120
AFFIRMED - 04/26/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
Aubrey Walker was formerly employed as a certified nursing assistant at the Liberty Community
Living Center (LCLC), a nursing home in Amite County. Walker was charged with abusing Merlie
Branning, an eighty-six year old vulnerable adult who resided at LCLC. The abuse allegedly occurred on
April 14, 2002.
¶2.
On the date in question, Walker was making her patient rounds with Gertrude Jones, a fellow co-
worker at LCLC, and Angela Dickerson, a nursing assistant who was in training at LCLC. Dickerson
testified that Jones left the room to receive a telephone call. While Walker and Dickerson were in the
room, Branning clung to the metal bed rail of her bed. According to Dickerson, Walker slapped Branning’s
hand and pulled Branning’s hair. Dickerson did not immediately report the abuse because she was unsure
that the nursing home staff would believe her and she was unsure of who to approach with the information.
Dickerson did, however, report the abuse to Melissa Nevels, an LPN at LCLC, a few hours later.
¶3.
Walker was convicted of abusing Branning in a trial in the Municipal Court of Liberty, Mississippi.
Walker then appealed to the Amite County Circuit Court, and a trial de novo was held on September 16,
2003. Walker was found guilty, and subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. It is
from this conviction that Walker now appeals, arguing: (1) that the decision of the trial court was against
the overwhelming weight of the evidence and (2) that the decision of the trial court was manifestly wrong
and clearly erroneous.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
This Court's standard of review for claims that a conviction is against the overwhelming weight of
the evidence is as follows:
[This Court] must "accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse
only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new
trial." A new trial will not be ordered unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming
weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction "unconscionable injustice."
Todd v. State, 806 So. 2d 1086, 1090 (¶11) (Miss. 2001) (citing Crawford v. State, 754 So. 2d 1211,
1222 (¶30) (Miss. 2000). The evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997). When a trial court sits without a jury, this Court
2
will reverse only when the findings of the trial judge are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. Amerson
v. State, 648 So. 2d 58, 60 (Miss. 1994).
¶5.
Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
WAS THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
¶6.
On appeal Walker argues that her conviction is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence,
this Court will only disturb a verdict when it is “so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that
to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Herring, 691 So. 2d at 957.
¶7.
We do not agree withWalker’s contention that her conviction is against the weight of the evidence.
Angela Dickerson, a nursing assistant, testified that she accompanied Walker on her rounds on April 14.
Together they went to the Alzheimer’s wing and into Branning’s room at approximately 3:30 p.m.
Dickerson testified that Walker “grabbed her by the hand, yanking her hand from the rail; she let go of the
rail, and [Walker] started hitting her on the hand.” Dickerson further testified that the women tried to move
Branning to change her gown, but Branning would not cooperate. Dickerson testified that Walker
“grabbed her by the hair of the head and yanked her up from her pillow by the hair of her head.”
Dickerson reported the incident to Melissa Nevels around 6:30 p.m. Nevels and Sheila Young, the charge
nurse for the shift, both testified that they went to check on Branning after they learned of the incident. Both
women testified that Branning was frightened, withdrawn, and lying in bed. Both women testified that
Branning’s hand was red and bruised.
¶8.
Walker argues that Dickerson’s testimony is contradicted by Walker’s testimony and by the
testimony of Gertrude Jones, who assisted Dickerson and Walker as they made rounds. However,
3
Dickerson testified that Jones was down the hall on the telephone when the abuse occurred. Jones testified
that while it is true that she received a telephone call, she was in the room the entire time that Walker and
Dickerson were assisting Branning. Jones testified that although Branning was upset, Jones watched
Walker gently stroke Branning’s hand, and not slap it, as Dickerson testified.
¶9.
"The trial judge has the sole authority to determine the credibility of the witnesses when sitting as
trier of fact in a bench trial." Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So. 2d 1259, 1265 (Miss. 1987).
"Where evidence is contradictory, this Court 'generally must affirm.'" Lesley v. State, 606 So. 2d 1084,
1091 (Miss. 1992). At a minimum, the testimony of these witnesses creates a question of fact to be
resolved by the trial judge. This assignment of error lacks merit.
II.
WAS THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT MANIFESTLY WRONG OR CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS?
¶10.
In a bench trial, the trial judge is "the jury" for all purposes of resolving issues of fact. Doolie v.
State, 856 So. 2d 669, 672 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). As discussed in Section I of this opinion, the trial
judge’s decision was based upon substantial evidence. We cannot say that his decision was manifestly
wrong or clearly erroneous. Although the defense presented witnesses whose testimony contradicted the
testimony of the State’s witnesses, these variations in testimony create questions of fact for the trial judge
to resolve. As such, we do not agree that his decision was manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. This
assignment of error lacks merit.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMITE COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF THE ABUSE OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AND FINE OF $120 IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
4
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.