Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-00295-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-KA-00295-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Rape, Burglary, Extortion & Kidnapping - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Medical treatment - M.R.E. 803(4) - Admission of evidence - Chain of custody - Admission of evidence - Identification testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-10-2011 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of rape, burglary, extortion, and two counts of kidnapping. Case Number: 10-CR-130-SC-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Darrin D. Wilson a/k/a Darrin Wilson |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Rape, Burglary, Extortion & Kidnapping - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Medical treatment - M.R.E. 803(4) - Admission of evidence - Chain of custody - Admission of evidence - Identification testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Darrin Wilson was convicted of rape, burglary, extortion, and two counts of kidnapping. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Wilson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Wilson’s hearsay objection to the testimony of an emergency-room nurse regarding the victim’s statement that she had been raped, because it was inadmissible hearsay under M.R.E. 801 and 802. While the nurse’s testimony regarding the victim’s allegation that she was raped was hearsay because it was a statement that was not made at trial and was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the trial court properly overruled Wilson’s hearsay objection, because the testimony fell within an exception to the general rule against admitting hearsay evidence. M.R.E. 803(4) provides that hearsay statements that are made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment are admissible. There is a two-part test for admitting hearsay statements under 803(4). First, the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment; and second, the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on in treatment. A patient’s statement that she has been raped is reasonably – and necessarily – relied on in discovering, diagnosing, and treating the patient. Accordingly, the trial court properly overruled Wilson’s hearsay objection. Issue 2: Admission of evidence Wilson argues that the trial court erred in admitting the rape kit and buccal swabs, because the chain of custody was broken and the gap was not explained. In order for the defendant to show a break in the chain of custody, there must be an indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence. The defendant has the burden of proving tampering or substitution of the evidence, and a mere suggestion that substitution could possibly have occurred does not meet the burden of showing probable substitution. Wilson has not attempted to prove that such tampering or substitution occurred. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Wilson argues that he made no effort to kidnap the victim’s infant daughter and that the evidence does not support his conviction. The evidence shows that Wilson forcibly seized and confined both the victim and her daughter when he pointed a gun at the victim, informed her – while she was holding her baby – that she was coming with him, and did not instruct her to leave the baby behind. In addition, the kidnappers sought money from the victim’s father in exchange for the safe return of both the victim and her daughter. Issue 4: Identification testimony Wilson argues that the victim’s testimony identifying him was inadmissible because police officers had suggestively presented her with a single photograph of Wilson rather than a photographic lineup of multiple individuals. However, Wilson did not object at trial when the victim identified him as her assailant. Thus, the only permissible ground for this claim is as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and Wilson does not challenge the photograph procedure to attack the sufficiency of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
