Townsend v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00247-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00247-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2003 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Kidnapping, Capital rape & Sexual battery - Expert assistance - Admission of testimony - Admission of exhibits - M.R.E. 901 - Sexual assault kit Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-11-1995 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Elzy Smith, Jr. Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, capital rape, and sexual battery and sentenced to thirty years, life, and thirty years, respectively. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 8520 |
|
| Consolidated: 95-KA-00234 Robert Lee Townsend v. State of Mississippi; Coahoma Circuit Court; LC Case #: 8520; Ruling Date: 01/11/1995; Ruling Judge: Elzy Smith, Jr. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert Lee Townsend |
CHERYL ANN WEBSTER
DARNELL FELTON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS, JR. |
|
|
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: | Kidnapping, Capital rape & Sexual battery - Expert assistance - Admission of testimony - Admission of exhibits - M.R.E. 901 - Sexual assault kit |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Townsend was convicted of kidnapping, capital rape, and sexual battery. He was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of imprisonment of thirty years, life, and thirty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert assistance Townsend argues that his attorneys needed assistance in examining the numerous items of physical and documentary evidence and with the medical examinations and procedures for identifying rape evidence. In determining whether a defendant was denied a fair trial because of failure to appoint or allow funds for an expert, some of the factors to consider are whether and to what degree the defendant had access to the State's experts, whether the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine those experts, and lack of prejudice or incompetence of the State's experts. In this case, an expert would have been of little assistance to Townsend because the evidence against him was overwhelming. Therefore, any error in refusing to provide Townsend expert assistance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 2: Admission of testimony Townsend argues that the court erred in allowing some of the sheriff’s testimony. One of his objections was to statements made to the sheriff by the victim. However, the district attorney moved on to another subject. Townsend’s other objection was to testimony concerning a matter about which the sheriff had no personal knowledge. The judge offered to give a curative instruction to the jury, but defense counsel refused. Therefore, there is no error. Issue 3: Exhibits Townsend argues that the court erred in admitting as exhibits lotion, samples extracted from a mattress, and a laundry bag, white towel, and striped sheet. M.R.E. 901 provides that the requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. The exhibits in question here were not erroneously admitted as they were introduced following sufficient foundational testimony by both the sheriff and the victim. Issue 4: Sexual assault kit Townsend argues that the court erred in admitting the victim’s and defendant’s sexual assault kits into evidence. The admitted both sexual assault kits into evidence, with the exception of the underwear, which he excluded and instructed the jury to disregard. There was no error in this ruling. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
