Purnell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00644-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00644-SCT ; 2002-KA-00644-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-13-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted rape, Sexual battery, Auto theft, & Strong arm robbery - Identifications - Validity of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-04-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: COUNT I: ATTEMPTED RAPE, SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TEN YEARS; COUNT II: SEXUAL BATTERY, SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF THIRTY YEARS; COUNT III: AUTO THEFT, SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; COUNT IV: ROBBERY SENTENCED TO SERVED A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS; THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I AND THE SENTENCE IN COUNTS III AND IV TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 01-0-369 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edward Earl Purnell a/k/a James Arnold a/k/a "Bubba" |
THOMAS M. FORTNER
LYNN WATKINS |
||
| 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: | Attempted rape, Sexual battery, Auto theft, & Strong arm robbery - Identifications - Validity of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edward Purnell was convicted of attempted rape, sexual battery, auto theft, and strong arm robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identifications Purnell argues that witnesses’ testimonies involving their photo line-up and in-court identifications of him should have been excluded. Factors to consider in determining whether the in-court identification testimony was impermissibly tainted include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Here, there is nothing suggesting that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive or unreliable. The victim testified that Purnell was in her house about half an hour, and that since she was pretty close to him the whole time, she could see Purnell’s face during the attack. Although she did not recognize Purnell as her attacker at trial, this was simply due to age and poor eyesight. Also, neighbors of the victim recognized Purnell when shown photos of him, and later made positive in-court identifications of him. Issue 2: Validity of indictment Purnell argues that the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the crime of attempted rape, because it did not state that Purnell “failed in his attempt” or “was prevented from” committing the act of rape. If the indictment reasonably provides the accused with actual notice, it is sufficient to charge the defendant with the crime. The indictment stated that Purnell did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and forcibly attempt to rape and ravish the victim, a female fourteen years of age or above, without the consent and against her will by hitting her with his fists, throwing her on the bed, forcing her legs open and attempting to penetrate her vagina with his penis. This was sufficient to put Purnell on notice that he was being charged with attempted rape. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Purnell argues that the court should have decided that the evidence presented by the state was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. The victim in this case testified that a man knocked on her door and asked to use her phone. When she allowed him into her house, he took her by the throat, threw her to the floor, dragged her into the bedroom, and proceeded to try to have sex with her. He then took her car and other personal belongings before leaving the house. Her neighbors testified that they saw Purnell driving the victim’s car. This is substantial evidence to support Purnell’s conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
