Bell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00274-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-28-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery & Attempted sexual battery - Withholding information during voir dire - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., 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: 12-14-2000 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: COUNT 1-CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY, SENTENCED TO SERVE 10 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC; COUNT 2-CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY, SENTENCED TO SERVE 10 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC; THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2000-121-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Fragepani Bell |
RAYMOND L. WONG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Sexual battery & Attempted sexual battery - Withholding information during voir dire - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fragepani Bell was convicted of one count of sexual battery and one count of attempted sexual battery. He was sentenced to ten years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voir dire Bell argues that the court erred in not granting a new trial after it was learned that one juror had allegedly withheld information concerning her prior acquaintance with Bell during voir dire. When a defendant claims that he has been denied a fair trial because a juror failed to reveal pertinent information during voir dire, the court should consider whether the inquiry was relevant, whether it was plain and unambiguous, whether the unresponsive juror had substantial knowledge of the information, and whether permitting the juror to serve was prejudicial. Here, the juror did not realize during voir dire that the defendant was the “Frag” Bell she had known approximately twenty years earlier. An acquaintanceship that was effectively severed over twenty years earlier and resulted in such a loss of contact that the juror was unable to recognize Bell does not appear to be the sort of relationship that would undermine her ability to return a fair verdict based solely on the evidence. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Bell argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. To prove sexual battery, the prosecution had to show that Bell engaged in sexual penetration with one of the young females, that Bell was twenty-four or more months older than the victim, and that the victim was under fourteen years of age. For attempted sexual battery the prosecution was required to show that Bell attempted to engage in sexual penetration with the child, that Bell was twenty-four or more months older than the victim, and that the victim was under the age of fourteen. The prosecution proved its case principally through the testimony of the two young victims who were both competent to testify. The uncorroborated testimony of a sexual assault victim is sufficient evidence to convict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
