Ladd v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-00429-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-20-2007
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Statutory rape - Admission of evidence - Expert assistance - Victim’s sexual history - M.R.E. 613 - M.R.E. 412
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-09-2006
Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Marcus D. Gordon
Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIVE YEARS TO BE SUSPENDED UPON COMPLETION OF FIFTEEN YEARS AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan
Case Number: 05-CR-0122-NS-G

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JOHNNY W. LADD




EDMUND J. PHILLIPS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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: Statutory rape - Admission of evidence - Expert assistance - Victim’s sexual history - M.R.E. 613 - M.R.E. 412

    Summary of the Facts: Johnny Ladd was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty years, with five years to be suspended upon completion of fifteen years, and five years of post-conviction supervision. Ladd appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Admission of evidence Ladd argues that the court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to his testimony that his ex-wife stole his tax returns, because this act shows that there was a strained relationship between him and his ex-wife and that the victim’s aunt had a desire to help his ex-wife in a possible divorce action. Ladd’s argument is completely irrelevant to the charge at hand. Whether Ladd’s ex-wife stole his tax returns had nothing to do with the statutory rape charge. Issue 2: Expert assistance Ladd argues that he was entitled to the appointment of an expert witness to help him prepare a defense to the DNA evidence presented by the State. The denial of expert assistance is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and will only be reversed if the appellant can show that the trial court’s abuse of discretion was so egregious as to deny him due process and where his trial was thereby rendered fundamentally unfair. The court considers 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 the present case, Ladd’s counsel stated at the pretrial hearing that he could not argue he did not have access to the experts, nor could he claim an inability to cross-examine them. Furthermore, Ladd did not want the court to appoint an expert that he might call at trial. He only wanted an expert to assist in the preparation of a defense. As for the value of the expert to Ladd, while he stated at trial that he did not have sex with the victim, at no point does he argue that the sperm collected from the victim did not belong to him. His only reason for requesting an expert was so that he could properly cross-examine the witnesses put on by the State. Ladd did not show that an expert would have significantly aided his defense. This issue is without merit. Issue 3: Victim’s sexual history Ladd argues that the court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to his questioning of the nurse concerning the victim’s sexual history. Ladd is correct in his assertion that M.R.E. 613 allows impeachment of a witness by use of a prior statement. However, Ladd did not lay the proper predicate to introduce any prior inconsistent statement by the victim. In his cross-examination of the victim, Ladd only asked her if she had ever had sex before the night of the alleged rape. He never questioned her about any statements made to the nurse. More importantly, Ladd fails to address M.R.E. 412, which was the basis for disallowing the testimony about the victim’s sexual history. The exceptions in that rule are not applicable to this statutory rape charge because Ladd did not offer the testimony to rebut the source of the semen or to establish consent, and there was no mention of past false allegations. Besides being irrelevant to the charge at hand, there is also nothing in the record indicating that Ladd complied with the requirements of Rule 412(c)(1), which requires the party to submit a written motion to offer that evidence no later than fifteen days before trial.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court