Napoleon L. Edwards v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-KA-01699-COA
NAPOLEON L. EDWARDS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
9/1/2006
HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER, III
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WILLIAM C. BRISTOW
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
JOHN RICHARD YOUNG
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON
BY A FELON AND SENTENCED TO SERVE
THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND PAY A FINE OF $5,000
AFFIRMED-10/02/2007
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On September 1, 2006, Napoleon Edwards was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lee County
of possession of a weapon by a felon. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to serve three
years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and pay a fine of $5,000.
Edwards filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which the
court denied. Aggrieved, Edwards timely appealed and argues that the trial court erred by denying
his motions for a directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
FACTS
¶2.
Napoleon Edwards was arrested on July 18, 2005, following an altercation with Bernard
Strong. The altercation took place at the Tupelo residence of Timmy Holliman, with whom Edwards
was living at the time.
¶3.
There were three different sequences of events that were presented at trial. Bernard and his
wife, Pamela Strong, presented one, Edwards gave another, and the State also introduced a statement
signed by Edwards that contradicted his testimony at trial.
¶4.
Edwards’s statement indicated that Bernard threw a bag to him when he came up to the
house. According to the statement, the bag belonged to Edwards, and it contained the gun, which
Bernard was supposed to give to Edwards as payment. The statement also indicated that Edwards
removed the gun from the bag and shot it into the ground because Bernard had threatened him. This
was similar to the account presented by Bernard and Pamela, who testified that Edwards removed
the gun from the bag and fired it into the ground. At trial, however, Edwards denied that he
possessed or fired the gun. He also testified that he did not make the statement at the police station.
¶5.
Nevertheless, it is uncontradicted that on July 18, police arrested Edwards after they
responded to the scene of Holliman’s residence because of a 911 call reporting shots fired. Officers
apprehended Edwards, and, from a nearby house, they also recovered the bag containing a loaded
revolver with one spent shell and a box of ammunition.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
¶6.
Edwards’s two points of error are that the trial court should have granted his motions for a
directed verdict and his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Both of these issues
involve the same analysis, so we will discuss them together.
2
¶7.
Review of a motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict tests the
sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶15) (Miss. 2005). The court must
ask whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act
charged and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and
where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” Id. at 843 (¶16)
(quoting Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968)). Taking the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, the question is whether a rational trier of fact could have found all the
elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844 (¶16) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 315 (1979)).
¶8.
Section 97-37-5(1) of Mississippi Code Annotated (Rev. 2006) states, “It shall be unlawful
for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or
of the United States to possess any firearm . . . .”1 The State must prove that the defendant, “as a
prior convicted felon, willfully possessed a firearm.” Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 473 (¶23)
(Miss. 2006). Similarly, to satisfy its burden in the present case, the State needed to put on evidence
that Edwards was a convicted felon and that he willfully possessed a firearm.
¶9.
We find that, contrary to Edwards’s assertions, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to
find all of the elements of the crime existed. First, Edwards’s prior felony conviction was not at
issue as both the State and the defense stipulated to it. This established the first element of the
crime, that Edwards be a convicted felon.
¶10.
As for the second element, there was testimony from multiple witnesses that Edwards not
only possessed a gun but fired it into the ground. This alone is more than sufficient evidence since
1
Section 97-37-5(1) does contain exceptions for anyone who is pardoned, obtains relief
pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or receives a certificate of rehabilitation.
None of these apply to Edwards, however.
3
witness testimony may be sufficient to convict a defendant of possession of a weapon by a felon.
Hope v. State, 840 So. 2d 747, 750 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). This is so even if no weapon is
recovered. Id.
¶11.
In the present case, however, authorities also found the weapon that Edwards was alleged
to have wielded, and the State introduced it at trial. Additionally, the State presented a statement
signed by Edwards. In that statement, Edwards admitted he fired the gun into the ground, but he
said he did so to protect himself. At trial, he denied that the statement was true and claimed that he
just signed the papers that were given to him. Nevertheless, it was for the jury to judge the
credibility of the evidence presented. Jones, 920 So. 2d at 472 (¶22).
¶12.
Ultimately, we find that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find all the
elements of the crime, possession of a firearm by a felon, existed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Edwards’s issues are without merit.
¶13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A FELON AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
PAYMENT OF A $5,000 FINE IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.