McDonald v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01231-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01231-COA ; 2006-CT-01231-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-18-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Gratification of lust - Admission of evidence - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, 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: 05-24-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF GRATIFICATION OF LUST AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH SENTENCES TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-05-00068 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MICHAEL JAMES MCDONALD |
DAVID LEE BREWER |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Gratification of lust - Admission of evidence - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael McDonald was convicted of two counts of gratification of lust and was sentenced to fifteen years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of evidence McDonald argues that the court erred by not allowing him to introduce evidence concerning the circumstances of his divorce and custody battle with his daughter’s (the victim) mother, because these circumstances were relevant and would help explain why his daughter made inconsistent statements about the incident. McDonald produced no evidence, other than his assertions, that his ex-wife was involved in the actions leading up to McDonald’s conviction. The ex-wife was not a witness to the incident nor was she involved in bringing charges against McDonald. While his daughter testified that she had a close relationship with her mother, a close mother-daughter relationship is in no way sufficient evidence to show that either the ex-wife instructed her daughter to inform the authorities of the molestation or the daughter fabricated the charge on her own. Issue 2: Weight of evidence McDonald argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because although he was touching and rubbing his daughter while applying suntan lotion, he was not doing so for the purpose of gratifying his lust. The victim testified that McDonald inserted his finger into her vagina and rubbed his hands under both her swimsuit top and bottom. Witnesses at the scene saw McDonald place his hands under the victim’s swimsuit and rub her in inappropriate places. The intent to gratify his lust could easily be inferred from McDonald’s actions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
