Golden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00111-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00111-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-05-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling - Peremptory strikes - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Veracity of victim - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence - Constitutionality of section 97-5-23(1) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-10-2005 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF FONDLING AND SENTENCED TO SERVE FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles Case Number: 2004-093 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GEORGE GOLDEN A/K/A GEORGE LEE GOLDEN A/K/A GEORGE L. GOLDEN, JR. |
WHITMAN D. MOUNGER |
||
| 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: | Fondling - Peremptory strikes - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Veracity of victim - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence - Constitutionality of section 97-5-23(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | George Golden was convicted of fondling his seven-year-old daughter. The court sentenced him to serve fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory strikes Golden is an African American male. At the conclusion of voir dire, the State exercised five of the six peremptory strikes allocated to the State to strike males, four of which were African American. The trial judge found that the reasons offered by the State were race-neutral and/or gender neutral reasons to justify the strikes, and thus no Batson violation. Golden argues that the judge erred in so finding. The reason offered by the State for striking Venson was that he was employed as a juvenile staff attendant in Washington County. Employment and factors related thereto are race-neutral reasons for a peremptory challenge. The State explained that it struck Elmore because he was a retired professor, he disclosed that his daughter had a felony conviction, and he appeared upset for having to reveal that information. A prospective juror’s hostile demeanor is a valid race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike as is the fact that a juror’s family member has been convicted of a crime. The juror Hall knew one of the defense witnesses and seemed to know Golden. A prospective juror’s acquaintance with the defendant or his family is a valid reason to exercise a peremptory strike. Juror Sutton was struck because he failed to fill out his juror card completely. Juror Wicks was struck because he marked “disabled” on his juror information card and failed to complete the card. The failure to complete a juror information card has been accepted as a valid race-neutral reason. Thus, the State offered race-neutral and/or gender-neutral reasons for its five peremptory strikes, and there was no error. Issue 2: Tender years’ exception Golden argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony of a clinical director and the videotape of the interview between the director and the victim pursuant to the tender years exception to the hearsay rule under M.R.E. 803(25). Because the victim testified at trial, this issue turns on whether the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provided substantial indicia of reliability. As required by Rule 803(25), the trial judge conducted a hearing outside the jury’s presence. The trial judge viewed the video and determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable. The record supports the trial judge’s ruling. Issue 3: Veracity of victim Golden argues that the judge erred when it allowed the clinical director to testify that she believed what the victim told her during the forensic interview. As Golden failed to raise an objection at trial, this issue is procedurally barred. Golden asserts correctly that an expert called to testify under M.R.E. 702 in a child abuse case may not give a direct opinion as to the victim’s veracity. However, while an expert may not opine that an alleged child sex abuse victim has been truthful, the scope of permissible expert testimony under Rule 702 includes an expert's opinion that the alleged victim's characteristics are consistent with those of children who have been sexually abused. While the director’s testimony exceeded the scope of permissible expert testimony as a direct opinion bearing on the victim’s truthfulness, it is not reversible error. The victim testified before the jury, and the jury had its own opportunity to evaluate her as well as her credibility as a witness. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Golden argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him due to minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and the testimony of others. It is well settled that the jury is the final arbiter of a witness's credibility. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty. Any inconsistencies or contradictions in the victim’s testimony were obviously resolved by the jury in favor of the State. Issue 5: Section 97-5-23(1) Golden argues that section 97-5-23(1) differentiates between males and females, and thus does not comport with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The statute is gender-neutral, and was so at the time of the offense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
