Vaden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00592-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00592-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling - Reasonable doubt - Other criminal acts - M.R.E. 404(b) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, 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: 03-24-2006 Appealed from: NOXUBEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF FONDLING AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS ON EACH COUNT TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAY A $1000 FINE FOR EACH COUNT AND UPON RELEASE PLACED ON FIVE YEARS OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION AND REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER PURSUANT TO STATE STATUE District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2005-031 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RICHARD VADEN |
RODNEY A. RAY |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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: | Fondling - Reasonable doubt - Other criminal acts - M.R.E. 404(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Vaden was found guilty of two counts of fondling. Vaden was sentenced to ten years for each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reasonable doubt Vaden argues that the court denied him a fair trial by failing to define reasonable doubt for the jury. The term “reasonable doubt” defines itself and is not a proper jury instruction. Therefore, the court did not err in denying this instruction. Issue 2: Other criminal acts Vaden argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of other criminal acts between Vaden and the victims which occurred in another jurisdiction. Under M.R.E. 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Evidence of prior bad acts between the defendant and the victim are admissible to show the defendant’s lustful, lascivious disposition toward the victim. The trial court’s ruling is clear that the prior acts of fondling were allowed into evidence to show plan and motive by Vaden. Furthermore, Vaden did not request a limiting instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
