Dupuis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00183-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00183-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-11-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Touching child for lustful purposes - Weight of evidence - Prior bad acts - Lesser offense Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-09-2002 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF TOUCHING, HANDLING A CHILD FOR LUSTFUL PURPOSES. SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS, TO SERVE THE FIRST 168 MONTHS CONSECUTIVELY AND DAY FOR DAY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CRIME. THE REMAINING ONE YEAR IS SUSPENDED FOR FIVE YEARS' PROBATION. District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith Case Number: 01-159 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy Dupuis |
JOSEPH A. FERNALD |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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: | Touching child for lustful purposes - Weight of evidence - Prior bad acts - Lesser offense |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Timothy Dupuis was convicted of touching a child for lustful purposes. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Dupuis argues that the evidence could not have supported a guilty verdict, because no physical evidence was presented to support the assault, and the verdict was based entirely on the testimony of the victim and her report to the social worker. After a motion for directed verdict is overruled at the conclusion of the State's evidence, and the appellant proceeds to introduce evidence in his own behalf, the point is waived. In order to preserve it, the appellant must renew his motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence. If any error existed in the court's refusal to grant Dupuis a directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief, Dupuis waived it when he proceeded to present evidence on his behalf. Because Dupuis did not renew this motion by way of a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence or by a motion for a peremptory instruction, any objection he had to the sufficiency of the evidence was waived. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Dupuis argues that the State tried to introduce testimony about his prior bad acts through questioning him about why his daughter no longer lives with him. A timely objection stating the specific ground of objection is required under M.R.E. 103(a) if error is to be predicated upon a ruling which admits evidence. Dupuis's attorney did not specifically state his objection on the record, nor did he base his objection on any rule violation or motion in limine. Even if Dupuis had made a proper objection, this line of questioning would not have violated the motion in limine or any rule of evidence. Issue 3: Indictment Dupuis argues that it was plain error for the court to convict him under the unlawful touching statute when he was indicted for the crime of sexual battery. Dupuis offered an instruction on the form of verdict that asked the jury to determine whether he was guilty of the crime of sexual battery, guilty of the lesser crime of touching and handling a child for lustful purposes, or not guilty. It is apparent that Dupuis decided, as a matter of trial strategy, that he wanted the jury to have the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offense of unlawful touching. Therefore, the lack of an indictment on the offense of unlawful touching was waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
