McGriggs v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01927-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CT-01927-COA ; 2006-CT-01927-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Rape - Opinion testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Briefing by state - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(5) & (6) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, 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: 06-27-2006 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: CONVICTED OF RAPE AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF EIGHTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC UNDER THE CONDITION OF MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 47-7-3(1)(b) (REV. 2004) District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr. Case Number: 05,0026-CRP |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOHN CHARLES MCGRIGGS |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN T. MARTIN | ||
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 - Opinion testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 - Briefing by state - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(5) & (6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | John McGriggs was convicted of rape and sentenced to eighteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Opinion testimony McGriggs argues that the court erred in admitting a statement by an officer that he had evidence that a rape took place. Pursuant to M.R.E. 701, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is admissible if rationally based upon the perception of the witness, helpful to the clear understanding of the testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of M.R.E. 702. Here, the officer was not testifying that McGriggs raped the victim. Rather, the officer was testifying that during his investigation, he concluded that a rape had taken place. This opinion was based on his personal perception upon his arrival at the scene, where he observed the victim partially nude and battered with visible injuries to her face and body. This type of statement, concerning the officer’s investigation and his findings falls entirely within the acceptable scope of admissibility under Rule 701. Issue 2: Expert testimony McGriggs argues that the trial court’s admission of the treating physician’s testimony that “[t]he vagina is not lacerated in consensual sex” was improper expert testimony and should have been stricken. An expert may base his opinion testimony upon his own personal observation pursuant to M.R.E. 703. Here, the doctor did not render an opinion that the victim had been raped; he merely recounted the victim’s physical condition upon her arrival and while under his care, noting that it was his opinion that the vagina is not lacerated during consensual sex. His testimony was based upon his own personal observation of the victim and his experience as a physician. McGriggs also argues that the physician was not qualified to offer the expert opinion that a blood alcohol reading of 0.123 is mild intoxication and that it would not affect a patient’s recall. The test to determine whether a witness is qualified to give expert testimony or opinion is whether the witness possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding relevant subject matter that is not possessed by the layman. Based upon the physician’s qualifications, as well as the defense’s acceptance of him as an expert in emergency medicine, the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony regarding the victim’s level of intoxication. Issue 3: Briefing by state The State has provided an insufficient brief in this appeal. For instance, M.R.A.P. 28(a)(5) requires a summary of the argument. The entire substance of the summary provided by the State only provides citations to Mississippi Rules of Evidence 701 and 703 and block quotations of those rules in full. There is no discussion regarding the applicability of the rules to the issues at hand. There are no supportive sentences accompanying the rules. Nor is there any reference to the argument. Further, M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) prescribes the content of the brief. The State’s brief is devoid of any arguments or case law, whatsoever, in either issue addressed on appeal. In addition, the section of the record excerpted by the State does not correlate to any argument raised within the issue by McGriggs’ brief. The Court hopes discussion of this matter serves as a reminder to members of the Bar of the importance of meeting the standards promulgated by the Supreme Court in the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
