Goodin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00756-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00756-COA ; 2006-CT-00756-SCT ; 2006-CT-00756-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Rape & Sexual battery - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of indictment - Redirect examination Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ.; CHANDLER, J., CONCURS IN PART. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. Dissent Joined By : LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Roberts, J., Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, RAPE, AND COUNT II, SEXUAL BATTERY, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE LIFE FOR COUNT I AND THIRTY YEARS FOR COUNT II, WITH BOTH SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR 04-396(G)L |
|
| Note: | This judgment by the Court of Appeals was affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part by the Supreme Court on 3/20/2008. See the Supreme Court decision at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO47147.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES ROBERT GOODIN |
JOHN CARL HELMERT |
||
| 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: | Rape & Sexual battery - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of indictment - Redirect examination |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Goodin was convicted of rape and sexual battery. He was sentenced to serve life imprisonment for rape and thirty years for sexual battery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Goodin argues that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, in order to find him guilty of rape, it must find that Goodin had sexual intercourse with the victim “despite all reasonable available physical resistance on her part to the use of force.” The law is clear in Mississippi that physical resistance is not required for a rape conviction when the victim failed to resist out of reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Goodin argues that no rational jury could have found him guilty of rape because the State did not present any evidence that force was used against the victim. Although the victim testified that Goodin did not beat her during the attacks, she did testify that Goodin forced her to take her clothes off. She also explained that she did not scream because she was scared. Substantial evidence supports the verdict. Issue 3: Amendment of indictment Goodin argues that the amendment to the indictment did not constitute the removal of surplus language because he lost the defense of lack of force when charged with the crime of sexual battery as opposed to rape. Goodwin’s defense to the original indictment was equally applicable to amended indictment. In addition, the amendment to the indictment was permissible, as it was one of form rather than substance. Issue 4: Redirect examination Goodin argues that the court erred in overruling his objection to the State’s redirect examination of the police officer. When the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the State’s witness, the prosecutor on redirect is unquestionably entitled to elaborate on the matter. On his cross-examination of the officer, Goodin inquired whether a rape kit had been performed on the victim. Although Goodin did not ask whether a medical exam had been performed, this information was volunteered by the officer in response to Goodin’s line of questioning. Based on these facts, the court did not abuse its broad discretion when it allowed the State to redirect regarding information elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
