James v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00786-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-00786-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-24-2012 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Retrospective competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 - Leading questions - M.R.E. 611(c) - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2008 Appealed from: Newton County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TO BE SERVED DAY FOR DAY District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 08-CR-011-NW-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Johnny James, Jr. |
JOHN R. MCNEAL JR . |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Statutory rape - Retrospective competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 - Leading questions - M.R.E. 611(c) - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny James Jr. was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty-five years, to be served day for day. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Competency hearing In Mississippi, a legally competent defendant is one who is able to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings; who is able to rationally communicate with his attorney about the case; who is able to recall relevant facts; who is able to testify in his own defense if appropriate; and whose ability to satisfy the foregoing criteria is commensurate with the severity and complexity of the case. The defendant has a separate procedural due process right to a competency hearing whenever the facts or events presented to the trial court raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competency. When the evidence raises this bona fide doubt, the court’s failure to inquire sua sponte into the issues of competency deprives the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. James argues his constitutional rights were violated because he was not afforded the procedural safeguard of a competency hearing prior to his August 2008 trial. However, a retrospective competency hearing cures the procedural violation and substantially complies with the purposes of URCCC 9.06. In this case, the trial court’s failure to conduct a competency hearing was both a procedural due-process violation and a failure to comply with Rule 9.06. However, the Court of Appeals ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine if the tools for holding a meaningful retrospective hearing were available—namely, to determine whether a contemporaneous mental evaluation was conducted. At that hearing, Dr. Webb testified he had evaluated James the month of his trial, and James’s attorney testified he had received Dr. Webb’s report. Dr. Webb’s report was produced at this hearing, giving the trial court “the most useful evidence” of James’s competency in 2008. Under the circumstances, there was sufficient information to make the retrospective hearing meaningful, curing the violation of James’s procedural due-process rights. Issue 2: Leading questions James argues the trial judge abused his discretion by overruling James’s objection to the State’s leading questions to two of its witnesses without first having the witnesses declared hostile or adverse. A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the specific answer desired by the examining attorney and is governed by M.R.E. 611(c). Rule 611(c) does not restrict the trial judge’s discretion to only allowing leading questions of hostile and adverse witnesses. A trial court has general discretion to allow leading questions if needed for the development of a witness’s testimony. The use of leading questions is not ground for reversal unless the trial court abused its discretion, and the decision resulted in substantial injury to the appealing party. Here, the testimony did not substantially injure James. Issue 3: Weight of evidence James argues the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. James challenges the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that James had sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim testified James put his penis in both her vagina and bottom, causing her to bleed. The totally uncorroborated testimony of a sex crime victim is sufficient to support a guilty verdict where it is consistent with the circumstances and is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence. James presented no evidence that contradicted the victim’s testimony. Though James argues the victim’s delay in reporting the rape to the authorities undermines her testimony, the victim explained she did not report the incident to the authorities until months later because she was afraid her father, if he learned what James had done, would retaliate and might go to jail. It was the jury’s unique role to determine the credibility of this explanation and what effect the victim’s delay in reporting the incident had on the overall credibility of her testimony about the rape. In addition, her testimony was sufficiently corroborated by another person who was present at the time. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
