Opinion ID: 1591871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial Bodily Injury

Text: ¶ 19. Wilson was also convicted of aggravated assault on Michael under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2) which states: (2) A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or (b) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm Wilson argues that given the result of the crime and the fact that Michael was not the initial intended target of his attack, at most he was guilty of simple assault under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-7(1). [2] This Court has made it clear from the language of these statutes, aggravated assault and simple assault are carbon copies of each other, with the exception that aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon. Hutchinson v. State, 594 So.2d 17, 19 (Miss.1992). This suggests that conduct which is simple assault under Section 97-3-7(1) becomes aggravated assault under Section 97-3-7(2) when done with a deadly weapon. Id. This is completed when we realize that a subsequent subsection of simple assault includes negligent injury to another with a deadly weapon. Id. ¶ 20. It is indisputable that the large kitchen knife Wilson used to stab Lisa and Michael was a deadly weapon. See Id. at 20. Also there was no evidence presented that Wilson was negligent in the act of stabbing Michael twice, once in the leg and once in the forehead. Both of these injuries required medical attention. Just because the injuries failed to leave permanent and lasting effects on the victim does not mean that the case is automatically one of simple assault. Id. By stabbing Michael with a knife, Wilson's attack caused a great risk of death. This Court does not require that an aggressor beat his victim to within an inch of his life in order to be found guilty of aggravated assault. Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 292 (Miss.1992). Given these facts and the applicable standard of review, we cannot agree there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict or that to let it stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. This argument is without merit.
¶ 21. Wilson asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give his two-theory jury instruction. However, in claiming error, Wilson only cites generally to a series of cases, without explaining their relevancy. This Court has held that it is the duty of the appellant to point to relevant case law in support of his argument and that failure to do so relieves us of the obligation of addressing the issue. Jones v. State, 841 So.2d 115, 138 (Miss. 2003); Williams v. State, 708 So.2d 1358, 1360-61 (Miss.1998); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1325-26 (Miss.1982). ¶ 22. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, we address this issue. The trial court refused to give the following jury instruction: The Court instructs the jury that if the evidence in this case presents two reasonable theories, one tending to indicate that the Defendant is guilty and the other tending to indicate that he is innocent, it is the jury's duty to accept the theory favorable to the Defendant and to find Kenneth Wilson, Jr., not guilty of the crime of murder. Wilson asserts this jury instruction is appropriate in all cases and therefore should have been given in this case. He further argues that, because his theory of the case included an assertion of self-defense, the evidence presented against him was circumstantial therefore requiring this instruction. ¶ 23. This Court has stated that two-theory instructions should only be given in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence. State v. Rogers, 847 So.2d 858, 863 (Miss.2003). We have defined circumstantial evidence as that which, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such a fact exists. Id. A circumstantial evidence case is one in which there is neither eyewitness testimony nor a confession to the crime. Id. As is clear in this case there were several eyewitnesses and Wilson repeatedly confessed to the crime. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction.
¶ 24. Wilson asserts that the cumulative impact of the trial court's errors denied him due process and therefore requires reversal. A criminal defendant is entitled to a fair trial and not a perfect trial. Sand v. State, 467 So.2d 907, 911 (Miss.1985). However, even though not reversible in themselves, the cumulative impact of non-reversible errors may, in our discretion, require reversal. Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 847 (Miss.2003). In the present case Wilson has been unable to show to this Court any error, either reversible or harmless. The lack of demonstrable error indicates that there is no need to consider its cumulative impact. Therefore, Wilson's argument is without merit.