The Supreme Court has ruled that a man convicted in Memphis of aggravated assault is entitled to a new trial because the prosecution did not properly elect an offense for the jury to consider.
The case of Michael Smith involves an alleged violation of an order of protection by Mr. Smith, who was formally charged with aggravated assault, evading arrest, and resisting official detention for his actions in 2010 involving his one-time girlfriend.
At trial, the jury heard testimony about events during which Mr. Smith was alleged to have threatened the victim at two different residences over a period of several hours. When the police located Mr. Smith after being called by the victim, Mr. Smith attempted to flee but was apprehended and arrested. A jury found Mr. Smith guilty of aggravated assault and evading arrest for his actions but acquitted him of resisting official detention.
Mr. Smith sought appellate review of his case, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions. Mr. Smith then appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the prosecution’s failure to stipulate a specific incident of assault for the jury to consider. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Mr. Smith was only charged with one instance of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court determined that the jury heard evidence of more than one instance that could establish guilt for aggravated assault, so the law requires the prosecution to elect only one such instance upon which the jury would deliberate. Failure to elect one specific instance, the Court held, infringes upon the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict. Therefore, Mr. Smith was granted a new trial on the aggravated assault charge.
The Court affirmed Mr. Smith’s conviction on the charge of evading arrest.