Young v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00629-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00629-COA ; 2010-CA-00629-COA ; 2010-CT-00629-SCT ; 2010-CT-00629-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-25-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Prior sexual assault - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Medical testimony - Medical causation Judge(s) Concurring: Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Chandler, J.; Kitchens and King, JJ., Join In Part Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Waller, C.J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2009 Appealed from: Union County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual battery of his minor daughter and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences. District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmoore Case Number: UK07-132 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Johnny R. Young, Jr. a/k/a Johnnie R. Young, Jr. |
VICTOR ISRAEL FLEITAS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Prior sexual assault - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Medical testimony - Medical causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Young, Jr., was convicted on three counts of sexual battery of his minor daughter and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior sexual assault Young argues that an alleged incident of sexual abuse to which his half-sister testified was too remote in time and too different from the events alleged by the victim, to have any noncharacter purpose; and any probative value the evidence had was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial judge admitted the testimony under M.R.E. 404(b). Evidence of prior sexual misconduct must satisfy Rule 404(b), be filtered through M.R.E. 403, and be accompanied by a limiting instruction. Evidence of prior sexual misconduct involving a female family member is admissible for noncharacter purposes where it shows motive, similar means, or a common plan, scheme, or system for the sexual abuse of the female family member for which the defendant is on trial. Here, evidence of Young’s prior sexual assault of his half-sister was admissible for noncharacter purposes under Rule 404(b). Those purposes include establishing Young’s motive and that both assaults were part of a common plan, scheme, or system that involved Young taking advantage of family relationships to engage in sexual activities with prepubescent girls. The evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b), filtered through Rule 403, and accompanied by a limiting instruction. Issue 2: Medical testimony Young argues that a nurse testified repeatedly to medical causation and gave opinions not disclosed before trial. The nurse’s testimony fell well within her realm of particular expertise. At the time of trial, she had been employed as a sexual assault nurse examiner at the Memphis Sexual Assault Research Center for sixteen years, and she had been a registered nurse for thirty-two years. She stated that, in order to be a SANE at her center, she needed a master’s degree and additional didactic or theory training, and had to perform fifteen examinations on children and fifteen examinations on adults before she was allowed to practice on her own. She is certified in psychiatric mental health and must complete an additional twelve hours of continuing education courses per year. She had been tendered, and accepted, as an expert witness in the area of physical examination of female genitalia and as a SANE nurse numerous times in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee. While she made assessments and observations and rendered opinions, she did not make a medical diagnosis or assign treatment. Thus, this issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
