Rollins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00282-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2007 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery, Touching child for lustful purposes & Contributing to delinquency of minor - Right of confrontation - Closed circuit testimony - M.R.E. 617(d) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-15-2006 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Michael M. Taylor Disposition: Count I: Conviction of Sexual Battery and Sentence of Life Imprisonment in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Affirmed. Count II: Conviction of Touching a Child for Lustful Purposes and Sentence of Fifteen (15) Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Affirmed. Counts III & IV: Conviction of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor and Sentence of Three Hundred Sixty-Four (364) Days, Each Count, in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 06-109-LT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | William Thomas Rollins |
L. Ivan Burghard |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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 & Contributing to delinquency of minor - Right of confrontation - Closed circuit testimony - M.R.E. 617(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Rollins was convicted of one count of sexual battery, one count of touching a child for lustful purposes, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Rollins argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial inasmuch as he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation due to the video/audio equipment failure during the minors’ testimony. Rollins waived his right to claim error in the jury’s inability to hear portions of the testimony, as his counsel, after conferring with Rollins, specifically declined to object. Procedural bar notwithstanding, the record reveals that the court administrator was in the courtroom with the jury during the closed-circuit testimony of the minor children, and that the court administrator was to immediately inform the trial judge if technical difficulties arose so that the problems could be remedied and questions and responses could be repeated. Rollins argues that he had an absolute right to view the demeanor of the minor witnesses, and since he did not have that opportunity, he was unconstitutionally denied a fair trial. However, in order to receive a new trial, Rollins must show that the denial of his right to view the demeanor of the minor witnesses prejudiced him. Rollins does not argue that he was prejudiced in any way. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
