Pryer v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02014-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02014-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Tender years’ exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2005 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: CONVICTION OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED PENDING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF FIVE YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, FINED $5,000 AND ORDERED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AS A SEX OFFENDER. District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG Case Number: CR04-093 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TIMOTHY PRYER A/K/A TIM A/K/A TIMOTHY GENE PRYER |
LORI NAIL BASHAM |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Tender years’ exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Pryer was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Tender years’ exception Pryer argues that the court erred in admitting, under the “tender years exception” to the hearsay rule, embodied in M.R.E. 803(25), testimony by the victim’s mother’s, a DHS social worker, and an investigatory as to what the victim told them about the sexual abuse she experienced, because the statements lacked spontaneity. The record shows that the circuit judge conducted the required Rule 803(25) hearing outside the presence of the jury. The judge, in support of his ruling, made extensive findings as to the factors necessary to ascertain the veracity of the proffered Rule 803(25) testimony and encompassed the factors listed in the comment to the rule. Those findings included: that the victim at ten years of age at the time of the alleged incidents; that the victim had no apparent motive to lie; that although the original allegations were not spontaneous and were spoken when only her mother was present, the victim repeated the statements to others and in court in a manner consistent with her original allegation; that the timing of the declaration was approximately one week after the last incident; that the relationship between the victim and the persons testifying was not an issue influencing the statements; that there was no evidence that the victim or the declarants had a faulty recollection; that the declarants were certain as to the statements made by the victim; that there was no evidence offered that called into question the credibility of the victim’s mother, the social worker or the investigator, and that none of them had an apparent motive to lie; that the victim appeared to know the difference between right and wrong, was of sufficient age to know that the alleged incidents of abuse constituted inappropriate touching, and had never accused anyone else of sexual abuse, all of which make it unlikely that the allegations were fabricated; that no suggestive techniques were used in eliciting the victim’s statements; and that the statements were corroborated by the use of an anatomical doll as well as by medical testimony. Therefore, the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion and the ruling did not adversely affect a substantial right owed to Pryer. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Pryer argues that the State’s medical expert testified only that the physical examination of the victim revealed signs consistent with, but not proof of, “sexual penetration,” and that a young child is not capable of identifying when “sexual penetration” has occurred. Although penetration is the very essence of sexual battery, only slight penetration is required to constitute the offense. Furthermore, penetration need not be established by actual medical evidence. The victim testified that Pryer, “stuck his hand down my panties and was putting his finger in my middle spot.” Her testimony was corroborated by the doctor who testified that his examination of the victim revealed an inflamed hymen. This testimony was sufficient to establish the element of “sexual penetration.” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
