Mason v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00052-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00052-COA ; 2006-CT-00052-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 412 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT II - SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR05-203 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RICHARD HARRISON MASON |
JOHN CARL HELMERT |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JACOB RAY |
|
|
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 - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 412 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Mason was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to thirty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mason argues that the court erred by excluding the testimony of the eight-year-old nephew of Mason, who testified that he witnessed the victim stick various objects into his rectum, including the victim’s fingers, twigs, and a water sprinkler. In applying M.R.E. 403 to the present case, the trial judge found that the events testified to by the eight-year-old witness were not relevant to the allegations contained in the indictment. Specifically, the indictment alleged that Mason committed the acts from September through November 2004, while the witness stated that he saw the victim insert objects into his rectum in either 2003 or 2001. The witness’s testimony referred to events that allegedly occurred at least a year prior to the acts referred to in the indictment. It is evident that the judge properly conducted a Rule 403 analysis to determine the prejudicial effect and probative value of the testimony, and it was within her discretion to exclude the testimony because of its irrelevance. Mason also argues that M.R.E. 412 does not apply. Rule 412 provides that, in sex offense cases, evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior is generally inadmissible. Rule 412 is only brought up once in the arguments concerning the admissibility of the witness’s testimony, and the testimony itself does not allege that these acts were sexual in any way. Under Rule 412, evidence of an alternate explanation may be excluded when it is too remote to be of any relevance to the allegations at trial. While the trial judge did not apply Rule 412 to the present case, she did find that the evidence was irrelevant due to the amount of time between the events in the testimony and those in the indictment. The judge properly excluded the testimony because it was irrelevant and was highly prejudicial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
