George Earl Smith v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00422-COA
GEORGE EARL SMITH
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/23/2000
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ARMSTRONG WALTERS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
COUNT I- AGGRAVATED ASSAULT: SENTENCED TO
8 YEARS
COUNT II-ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY:
SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY
WITH COUNT I.
AFFIRMED - 06/04/2002
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
6/25/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., LEE, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
McMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. George Earl Smith was convicted by a Lowndes County Circuit Court jury of aggravated assault and
attempted sexual battery involving an incident with a thirteen-year-old female. He has appealed claiming that
the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction or, alternatively, that the guilty
verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Smith raises a third issue in which he claims that, under the
State's theory of the case, the aggravated assault was a necessary element of the attempted sexual battery
so that the two offenses merged, thereby making it improper for him to be convicted of two separate
crimes. Finding none of these issues to have merit, we affirm the convictions and resulting judgment of
sentence.
I.
Facts
¶2. The competing versions of the incident itself were provided by the victim and by Smith, the defendant.
The female victim testified that she was walking home along a railroad track when she was chased down by
Smith. According to her, Smith wrestled her to the ground and began to forcibly remove her clothing. The
victim put up a fierce resistance that included scratching her assailant in the face. In an effort to overcome
the resistance, Smith struck his victim in the head with a stick, inflicting substantial pain. Smith then
demanded that she remove her clothing and she began to comply, being fearful that he would inflict further
physical injury. However, she was ultimately able to escape by striking Smith in the head with a rock and
fleeing the scene. A police officer investigating the case confirmed at trial that, when he first saw Smith, his
face did show evidence of scratch marks.
¶3. Smith testified in his own defense and said that the victim had approached him and offered to have
sexual relations with him for a sum of money which he gave her, but she then attempted to run away. He
said she fell while running, striking her face, and that he caught up with her in an attempt to have his money
returned. It was at that point that she wrestled free and ran away once again, scratching his face in the
process. At that point, Smith said he determined that further pursuit to retrieve his money was not
warranted.
¶4. A physician who testified to having examined the victim the morning after the incident said that the
victim's complaints of tenderness about her face were consistent with being struck by an object such as a
stick but admitted on cross-examination that they were also consistent with an injury received in a fall.
II.
The Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶5. If, as to one or more of the essential elements of the crime, the State's proof was either nonexistent or
so lacking in probative value that a fair-minded juror could only find the defendant not guilty, the defendant
is entitled, on proper motion, to have the trial court enter a judgment of not guilty notwithstanding the action
of the jury in finding him guilty. Steele v. State, 544 So. 2d 802, 808 (Miss. 1989). In assessing the merits
of the motion, the court must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's
verdict and must assume that, as to critical issues on which the evidence conflicted, the jury sitting as triers
of fact resolved those issues in favor of the State. Sheffield v. State, 749 So. 2d 123, 125 (Miss. 1999).
When the trial court refuses to grant a JNOV motion and that is raised as error on appeal, this Court must
undertake an independent review of the same evidence to determine whether we are convinced that the trial
court erred in denying the motion. McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993).
¶6. In this case, the witnesses gave conflicting versions of events. The State's version, offered primarily
through the testimony of the victim, was not shown to be implausible, nor was it contradicted by any
evidence other than the defendant's uncorroborated testimony. The victim's credibility was not impeached
by any of the traditionally-recognized methods for calling into question a witness's willingness or ability to
accurately relate events critical to the case. In that situation, when the jury carries out its obligation as factfinder to resolve disputed facts and does so by accepting as more credible the version advanced by the
prosecution, this Court has no basis to intercede. This issue is without merit.
III.
New Trial
¶7. Even when the evidence is sufficient to convict, a defendant may nevertheless be entitled to a new trial
when the trial court determines that the guilty verdict returned by the jury was against the weight of the more
credible evidence presented at trial. Fleming v. State, 732 So. 2d 172, 183 (¶ 37-38) (Miss. 1999). This
alternative to a total exoneration of the defendant based on a successful challenge to the legal sufficiency of
the evidence exists to prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice. Wetz v. State, 503 So. 2d 803, 812
(Miss. 1987). The trial court has a measure of discretion in determining whether a new trial on this ground is
in order and appellate review of a decision to deny a new trial motion is limited to a search for an abuse of
that discretion. Id.
¶8. Our review of all the evidence in the record leaves us unpersuaded that the State's case was so weak or
the defendant's proof was so persuasive that the jury's decision to convict has worked a manifest injustice.
For that reason, we decline to overturn the trial court's decision to deny Smith's new trial motion.
IV.
Merger of the Two Crimes
¶9. Two independent crimes merge into one when the greater crime necessarily includes all the elements of
the lesser crime as a lesser included offense. Newburn v. State, 205 So. 2d 260, 264 (Miss. 1967). The
Mississippi Supreme Court has illustrated this principle by pointing out that, if a person violently strikes
another with a deadly weapon, causing the victim's death, the culprit cannot be charged separately with
homicide and with assault. Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295, 311 (Miss. 1987).
¶10. In this case, the State proved that, in an effort to force or coerce the victim into submitting to his sexual
advances, Smith struck the victim in the head with a stick. An assault of this nature, though perhaps helpful
in pursuing the defendant's ultimate aim of engaging in unwanted sexual contact with his victim, is not
necessarily an element of the sexual crime. Especially on the facts of this case, where the victim was chased
and wrestled to the ground in an attempt to engage in sexual relations, the crime of attempted sexual battery
was, in fact, completed before the act of striking her even occurred. "A criminal defendant may be
prosecuted for more than one statutory offense arising out of a basic set of facts." Harden v. State, 460
So.2d 1194, 1199 (Miss.1984). In Davis v. State, this Court held that an act of assault did not merge into
the crime of robbery though the assault was clearly in furtherance of the purpose of accomplishing the
robbery. Davis v. State, 750 So.2d 552, 563 (¶ 43) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). We find the same principles
announced in Davis to control our decision in this case. These two crimes did not merge and this issue is
without merit.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS AND
CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS,
SAID SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY AND TO BE SERVED IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THE
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, MYERS, CHANDLER
AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
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.
