Reese v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00966-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00966-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Photographic lineup - Discovery violation - Peremptory instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Administration of oath to jury Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2002 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: James W. Backstrom Disposition: SEXUAL BATTERY - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. Case Number: 01-10,142(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Brian Reese |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Sexual battery - Photographic lineup - Discovery violation - Peremptory instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Administration of oath to jury |
| Summary of the Facts: | Christopher Reese was convicted for sexual battery of a child under the age of fourteen years. He was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Photographic lineup Reese argues that he was prejudiced by the placement of his photograph in the upper left hand corner of the photo array during the pretrial photo identification of him by the victim. In determining whether the in-court identification is sufficiently reliable to overcome the taint of the prior improperly attained identification, the court should consider the opportunity of the witness to view the accused at the time of the crime; the degree of attention exhibited by the witness; the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal; the level of certainty exhibited by the witness at the confrontation; and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Here, the victim had ample opportunity to view Reese at the time of the crime, she was acquainted with Reese and talked to him on several occasions, Reese lived in her neighborhood and called her on the telephone numerous times, the victim observed Reese’s facial features and was confident that Reese was the person with whom she had engaged in sexual intercourse, and she identified him in court as that person. Therefore, the in-court identification of Reese is sufficiently reliable to overcome any possible taint of the prior photo identification. Issue 2: Discovery violation The State attempted to introduce testimony from the victim about an apology Reese purportedly made to the victim’s father. The apology was contained in a medical report, which included statements the victim and her family attributed to Reese. Reese argues that the medical report does not contain an explicit apology by Reese to the victim’s father and that the admission of this evidence was a discovery violation. A violation of Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules dealing with discovery violations is considered harmless error unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the violation caused a miscarriage of justice. Here, Reese presents nothing which indicates the defense would have differed significantly had the specific statement of apology been provided to him in discovery. Therefore, any violation of the rule was harmless. Issue 3: Peremptory instruction Reese argues that the judge erred when he granted a peremptory jury instruction on the issue of the victim’s age because the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was under the age of fourteen. Not only did Reese fail to object to the granting of this instruction, but the victim testified that she was eleven years old when the sexual encounter occurred which is sufficient to establish the age of the minor. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Reese argues that the State failed to prove that Reese was more than twenty-four months older than the victim. However, the victim testified that Reese told her he was seventeen years old before they had sexual intercourse, and this statement was admitted into evidence without objection as non-hearsay pursuant to M.R.E. 801(d)(2). Issue 5: Administration of oath Reese argues that the jury was not sworn as required. Not only did the judge tell the jury that they had been sworn, but his attorney made reference to the jury being properly sworn. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
