Peters v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-00044-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-06-2004
Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sexual battery & Touching child for lustful purposes - Sufficiency of evidence - Right to speedy trial
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-19-1999
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: John H. Whitfield
Disposition: COUNTS ONE AND TWO-SEXUAL BATTERY- 30 YEARS. COUNT THREE-TOUCHING OF A CHILD FOR LUSTFUL PURPOSES- 15 YEARS. EACH COUNT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH OTHER FOR A TOTAL OF 30 YEARS DAY FOR DAY.
District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II
Case Number: B 2401-97-00884

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Eddie Lee Peters, Sr.




FELICIA DUNN BURKES



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE  

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 & Touching child for lustful purposes - Sufficiency of evidence - Right to speedy trial

Summary of the Facts: Eddie Peters, Sr. was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and one count of touching a child for lustful purposes. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence The child was eight years old when these offenses occurred, and her testimony included a vivid description of the events which took place. This was evidence to support conviction. Issue 2: Right to speedy trial Factors to consider in determining whether there has been a violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial include length of delay; reason for delay; whether defendant has asserted his right to a speedy trial; and whether defendant was prejudiced by the delay. There were 452 between Peters’ arrest and the beginning of trial. Both the State and the defendant contributed to the length of time between arrest and trial, with no unreasonable actions by either party being apparent. Peters was vigorous in asserting his right. There is no indication of prejudice arising from the delay. Since there was no intentional delay and no obvious prejudice, the balance is in favor of rejecting the speedy trial claim.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court